By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,659 Members | 910 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,659 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Prevent IE users from copying or seeing copy toolbar?

P: n/a
me
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
102 Replies


P: n/a
"me" <anonymous@_.com> writes:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.


Assuming you use PHP (if not, translate to another language), place
this at the top of your page.

<?php
if (ereg("IE",$_SERVER['USER_AGENT'])) {
exit;
}
?>

Not 100% reliable, but it will stop the vast majority of IE users
copying your images.

Admittedly, it also has the side effect of stopping IE users from
*seeing* your image, but that's the price you pay.

Other approaches include:
- going into IE users' houses and stealing all their PrintScrn
keys. Best break into their offices as well, just in case.
- not putting the image on the web in the first place.
- getting a really big copyright lawyer

The group FAQ has some more hints for you.

--
Chris
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? T


Your users may be annoyed if part of the standard functionality of
their browser was switched off with no warning. They can always
disable the feature themselves if they don't want to use it.

But if you've checked with all your users and they do want you to
switch this function off for them on your site then have a look at
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...mgtoolbar.mspx
bottom of the page for HTML solutions - note that the meta tag is
technically valid (but bogus as there is no HTTP header imagetoolbar
for this to be an equivalent of, but the galleryimg attribute is
invalid unless you use a custom DTD.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
"me" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website?


If you don't want your content copied, don't put it on the Web.

Period.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
Steve Pugh wrote:
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,

Is the misspelling, "appal" instead of "appall," part of the quote?

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
me wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.


<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
Jim Moe <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,

Is the misspelling, "appal" instead of "appall," part of the quote?


It's not a mistake. Appal is an alternative spelling of appall and is
in fact the more common way of spelling it here in Britain.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:08:14 +0000, Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> wrote:
Jim Moe <jm***************@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,

Is the misspelling, "appal" instead of "appall," part of the quote?


It's not a mistake. Appal is an alternative spelling of appall and is
in fact the more common way of spelling it here in Britain.


Or on Gallifrey?

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
me wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website?


Why is it that so many authors want to take control over a user's user
agent settings, particularly with implementation specific user agent
features, just because they do not like the feature themselves? Have
you ever stopped to consider that a user may find the feature useful,
and they would be annoyed if it did not work? Conversely, have you ever
considered that if a user didn't want the feature, the can disable it
themselves?

The same is true for other features like AutoComplete, Google's new
AutoLink and Smart Tags (although, they were never successful on the web
anyway) and any other implementation specific user agent feature that
authors have (and still do) request to be able to disable. The simple
answer is that they cannot and should not be disabled using valid HTML.

(Note: There are proprietary extensions for an author to disable
autocomplete and smart tags, but keep in mind that any user agent that
obeys such directives from the author are no longer acting on behalf of
the user.)

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
Steve Pugh wrote:
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,


Is the misspelling, "appal" instead of "appall," part of the quote?


It's not a mistake. Appal is an alternative spelling of appall and is
in fact the more common way of spelling it here in Britain.

Ah. Thanks.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
C A Upsdell > wrote:
me wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up...


<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">


Don't use that. You, as an author, have absolutely no right to disable
a user's user agent feature, especially one like the image toolbar which
has absolutely no effect on the accessibility or usability of you site.
(Well, it shouldn't). The image toolbar is an implementation specific
user agent feature, and as such the choice of using it or not lies with
the *user*. User agents that obey such directives to disable certain
features are acting on behalf of the author, rather than the user. Keep
in mind that it is a *user agent*, not an author agent!

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
C A Upsdell > wrote:
me wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping
up...

<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

Don't use that. You, as an author, have absolutely no right to disable
a user's user agent feature, especially one like the image toolbar which
has absolutely no effect on the accessibility or usability of you site.
(Well, it shouldn't). The image toolbar is an implementation specific
user agent feature, and as such the choice of using it or not lies with
the *user*. User agents that obey such directives to disable certain
features are acting on behalf of the author, rather than the user. Keep
in mind that it is a *user agent*, not an author agent!


Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users would
want to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive. In the second place, for most pages, in the very
rare instances where a user might want to carry out such functions,
there are other ways of doing them. And in the third place, if there is
a page in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the user would
want to use the toolbar, it is easy to omit the meta tag for that page.

The bottom line on this is that IE (the only browser to support such a
toolbar) is too stupid to tell whether or not a given image should have
such a toolbar, and therefore it is reasonable for the designer to help
IE out by supplying the intelligence that IE lacks.

Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
me
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:t6********************************@4ax.com...
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? T
Your users may be annoyed if part of the standard functionality of
their browser was switched off with no warning. They can always
disable the feature themselves if they don't want to use it.

But if you've checked with all your users and they do want you to
switch this function off for them on your site then have a look at

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...mgtoolbar.mspx bottom of the page for HTML solutions - note that the meta tag is
technically valid (but bogus as there is no HTTP header imagetoolbar
for this to be an equivalent of, but the galleryimg attribute is
invalid unless you use a custom DTD.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>


Thank you Steve. The link you provided was exactly what I was looking for.
I'm afraid I will not be able ask every visitor to my site if they object to
my use of this code. I wonder if in future I might receive an email that
says something like:

Dear Website Owner:
How dare you disable my image toolbar thereby making it less convenient for
me to steal your intellectual property.

I'm sure I'd find such a complain very amusing indeed! Thanks again for your
help Steve.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
me wrote:
Thank you Steve. The link you provided was exactly what I was looking for.
I'm afraid I will not be able ask every visitor to my site if they object to
my use of this code. I wonder if in future I might receive an email that
says something like:

Dear Website Owner:
How dare you disable my image toolbar thereby making it less convenient for
me to steal your intellectual property.


This doesn't prevent them from stealing your intellectual property. All
they have to do is right-click on your images and select Save Image, or
press the PrtSc button and paste the clipboard into a graphics program,
or look in the page's source code to find the image's URL and then
request the image directly, or switch to another browser.

You are faced with the same reality that faces a publisher of print
material who worries about people photocopying or scanning his works:
you don't have that degree of control. All you can do is make your
copyright clear and then keep an eye out for violations.
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
C A Upsdell > wrote:

Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users would
want to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive.
Yes, it is, which is why, when I installed the first version of IE that
had this toolbar and it annoyed the hell out of me, I went into Options
and turned it off so it doesn't bother me on *any* site. If I don't like
the toolbar, but I didn't know to turn it off myself, how would it
benefit me for one web site provider per hundred or per thousand to take
it upon it himself to do it for me?
In the second place, for most pages, in the very
rare instances where a user might want to carry out such functions,
there are other ways of doing them.
If I were a person who *liked* using the toolbar for these functions,
what would be the point of one particular site's owner deciding that on
his site I'll do it a different way?
And in the third place, if there is
a page in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the user would
want to use the toolbar, it is easy to omit the meta tag for that page.

The bottom line on this is that IE (the only browser to support such a
toolbar) is too stupid to tell whether or not a given image should have
such a toolbar,


This makes no sense. The toolbar is a *user* tool for users who want to
use it. Whether the a particular user would want to use the toolbar on
one image or another is not an inherent property of the image.
Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users would
want to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive.


Then let the user decide to disable it. The author has no right to
decide the uer interface of the user's browser.

Oh, and please use more parliamentary language, okay? Using swear
words doesn't strengthen anyone's case.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
me
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
Thank you Steve. The link you provided was exactly what I was looking for. I'm afraid I will not be able ask every visitor to my site if they object to my use of this code. I wonder if in future I might receive an email that
says something like:

Dear Website Owner:
How dare you disable my image toolbar thereby making it less convenient for me to steal your intellectual property.
This doesn't prevent them from stealing your intellectual property.


True, it just makes it less convient.
All
they have to do is right-click on your images and select Save Image, or
press the PrtSc button and paste the clipboard into a graphics program,
or look in the page's source code to find the image's URL and then
request the image directly, or switch to another browser.
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks and the photos popup in a non resizeable window with no
toolbars. You are correct that no form of protection is perfect.
You are faced with the same reality that faces a publisher of print
material who worries about people photocopying or scanning his works:
you don't have that degree of control. All you can do is make your
copyright clear and then keep an eye out for violations.


I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they really
want to. I use this code for the same reasons I lock my front door,
deterrence.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
me
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users would
want to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive.


Then let the user decide to disable it. The author has no right to
decide the uer interface of the user's browser.


Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your assertion
that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website author to decide what
functions a visitor should or should not have while visiting the author's
website. If you are stating your opinion and are unable to offer proof of
your assertion then please say so. Thank you in advance for your
clarification.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
me wrote:
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.

It stops users who know so little about the browser that they cannot
even figure out how to disable the annoying toolbar, or have not
discovered the right mouse button yet.
Also, you have *already delivered the content to them*. There is
nothing you can do to prevent someone copying what they already have. If
you regard your work so highly and assume it will be wildly popular, do
not make it readily available. Or deliver it as a thumbnail, low quality
image, or watermarked.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Jul 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks
Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers don't let pages disable the context menu.
and the photos popup in a non resizeable window
Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers allow the user to resize any window.
with no toolbars.


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers--I'm sure you get the idea...
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"What is the use of running when you are not on the right road?"
Jul 23 '05 #20

P: n/a
me
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks
Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers don't let pages disable the context

menu.
and the photos popup in a non resizeable window


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers allow the user to resize any window.
with no toolbars.


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers--I'm sure you get the idea...
--
Darin McGrew


The title of my OP defines the target browser.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
C A Upsdell > wrote:
The bottom line on this is that IE (the only browser to support such a
toolbar) is too stupid to tell whether or not a given image should
have such a toolbar,

This makes no sense. The toolbar is a *user* tool for users who want to
use it. Whether the a particular user would want to use the toolbar on
one image or another is not an inherent property of the image.


You guys are all missing the key point I am trying to make. So I will
elaborate.

IE *tries* to make a good decision as to whether the image toolbar
should appear for a particular image. But IE is not human, therefore it
cannot make an INTELLIGENT decision as to whether the toolbar should
appear or not. So it uses a SIMPLISTIC ALGORITHM to decide. It decides
that the toolbar should NOT appear if (see
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=303473):

1. The user has disabled the toolbar;

2. OR if the image is less than 200x200 pixels;

3. OR if the image is a background image;

4. OR if the the image is part of an image mapping;

5. OR the author has disabled the toolbar by using the metatag.

However the author can override IE's decision in criteria (2) and (4) by
using a non-standard attribute GALLERYIMG="yes" in the IMG tag.

Think about this. Even if the user has not disabled the toolbar, IE
will suppress the toolbar by default -- and therefore prevent the user
from using the toolbar on an image, giving the user no choice in the
matter -- if the image meets certain criteria: criteria which IE uses
to decide whether the image is likely one for which the user would want
the toolbar.

But IE is not human. It cannot make an intelligent decision. So
sometimes its decision will be wrong. This is inevitable. And this is
why Microsoft offers authors the meta tag and the GALLERYIMG attribute:
so that the authors can supply the intelligence that IE lacks.

The argument, therefore, that the meta tag should never be used, is
fundamentally flawed. There are many instances in which the toolbar
will not appear: omitting the meta tag simply ensures that it is IE, and
IE alone, that decides whether it will appear or not.
Jul 23 '05 #22

P: n/a
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your assertion
that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website author to decide what
functions a visitor should or should not have while visiting the author's
website.


The basic problem is that it "prevents users from forming a robust
conceptual model of their systems" (to quote Jakob Nielsen slightly out of
context: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011028.html).

If the user interface behaviour is inexplicably different at some sites,
then the average user has more difficulty figuring out what the user
interface is supposed to be, and that affects the usability of all sites
(for that user). Leave the user interface alone, and average users will be
better off. Do whatever you want with your site, but leave the user
interface alone.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"What is the use of running when you are not on the right road?"
Jul 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
me wrote:

I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they really
want to. I use this code for the same reasons I lock my front door,
deterrence.


Well, OK, but it's not so much like locking your front door as it is
like hanging a length of string across the entryway.
Jul 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
me wrote:
I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they really
want to. I use this code for the same reasons I lock my front door,
deterrence.

Well, OK, but it's not so much like locking your front door as it is
like hanging a length of string across the entryway.


You just made me think of this image:

http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/winsecurity.jpg

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Who has implemented Usenet Solution #45933:
Now killing all posts originating at Google Groups

Jul 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
"me" wrote:
I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they really
want to. I use this code for the same reasons I lock my front door,
deterrence.

Harlan Messinger wrote: Well, OK, but it's not so much like locking your front door as it is
like hanging a length of string across the entryway.

My thought was that it was like taping a picture of a lock to your front
door, but maybe a brightly colored ribbon (complete with a pair of
oversized scissors?) is a more appropriate analogy.

Blinky the Shark <no*****@box.invalid> wrote: You just made me think of this image:

http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/winsecurity.jpg


I used to work in the Windows Development Group at Tandem. Originally, our
charter was to bring the robustness of Tandem's NSK (Non-Stop Kernel)
technology to Microsoft's Windows NT. That photo brought back memories.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Jul 23 '05 #26

P: n/a
me wrote:
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your
assertion that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website
author to decide what functions a visitor should or should not have


Dear anonymous@_.com,
Please refrain from using such a condescending tone before you end up in
the killfiles.

--
Signed,
Brian
Jul 23 '05 #27

P: n/a
me wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users would
want to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive.


Then let the user decide to disable it. The author has no right to
decide the uer interface of the user's browser.


Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your assertion
that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website author to decide what
functions a visitor should or should not have while visiting the author's
website.


He should provide proof of a personal opinion? I likewise feel, without
any proof whatsoever, that you have no business maximizing my window,
changing my scrollbar color, or blocking operation of my context menu.
Jul 23 '05 #28

P: n/a
me
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:HMpVd.65511$Dc.1083@trnddc06...
me wrote:
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your
assertion that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website
author to decide what functions a visitor should or should not have


Dear anonymous@_.com,
Please refrain from using such a condescending tone before you end up in
the killfiles.

--
Signed,
Brian


Dear Brian:
You may, with my blessing, kill file me at your earliest opportunity.
Condescendingly Yours,
me
Jul 23 '05 #29

P: n/a
me
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your assertion that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website author to decide what functions a visitor should or should not have while visiting the author's website.


The basic problem is that it "prevents users from forming a robust
conceptual model of their systems" (to quote Jakob Nielsen slightly out of
context: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011028.html).

If the user interface behaviour is inexplicably different at some sites,
then the average user has more difficulty figuring out what the user
interface is supposed to be, and that affects the usability of all sites
(for that user). Leave the user interface alone, and average users will be
better off. Do whatever you want with your site, but leave the user
interface alone.
--
Darin McGrew


Mr. Nielson may be underrating the visitors capability to understand current
website design. His recommendation to avoid JavaScript, special menu
controls and script in general would IMO do little to increase the bottom
line of most professional website designers but his MMV and yours may too.

IIUC your objection is philosophical in which case we must agree to
disagree. IMO the visitors to my site will not suffer any permanent damage.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #30

P: n/a
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
> I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
> right clicks


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers don't let pages disable the context
menu.
> and the photos popup in a non resizeable window


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers allow the user to resize any window.
> with no toolbars.


Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers--I'm sure you get the idea...


The title of my OP defines the target browser.


The title of this newsgroup defines the scope of discussions that take
place here. If you're not talking about authoring for the world wide
web then you're in the wrong place.

Steve

--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #31

P: n/a
me
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

Bullshit. I am normally in favour of letting the user have control overtheir browser, but the image toolbar is an exception. In the first
place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood that users wouldwant to use this toolbar's functions, and for such sites the toolbar is
EXTREMELY intrusive.

Then let the user decide to disable it. The author has no right to
decide the uer interface of the user's browser.
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your assertion that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website author to decide what functions a visitor should or should not have while visiting the author's website.


He should provide proof of a personal opinion?


Since Mr. Brown declared that I had no right to decide what functions a
visitor should or should not have while visiting my site I inquired if it
was his opinion (as I stated in a prior post but snipped from this post) or
on what grounds he made his assertion.
I likewise feel, without
any proof whatsoever, that you have no business maximizing my window,
changing my scrollbar color, or blocking operation of my context menu.


You are entitled to your opinion. You also have the right to avoid any site
that you find objectionable, just as I have the right to configure my site
however I choose.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #32

P: n/a
"me" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
True, it just makes it less convient.
"Convient"??
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks and the photos popup in a non resizeable window with no
toolbars.
I suppose it comforts you to believe that.
I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they really


A "detriment thief"??? If someone steals a detriment he' be worse
off than before, no?

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 23 '05 #33

P: n/a
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The argument, therefore, that the meta tag should never be used, is
fundamentally flawed. There are many instances in which the toolbar
will not appear: omitting the meta tag simply ensures that it is IE, and
IE alone, that decides whether it will appear or not.


Your argument seems to be that because users my not immediately be
aware of the criteria by which IS decides hether to display the
toolbar, authors should make it even more arbitrary and less
predictable.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 23 '05 #34

P: n/a
me
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:jf********************************@4ax.com...
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
> I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user > right clicks

Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers don't let pages disable the context
menu.

> and the photos popup in a non resizeable window

Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers allow the user to resize any window.

> with no toolbars.

Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers--I'm sure you get the idea...


The title of my OP defines the target browser.


The title of this newsgroup defines the scope of discussions that take
place here. If you're not talking about authoring for the world wide
web then you're in the wrong place.

Steve


If the discussion has gone OT it's not my doing, I was responding to
comments made about my OP. In any case I'm not entirely sure if this is OT
since some feel quite strongly about what authors are entitled to do with
their websites as in what code they should or should not use.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #35

P: n/a
me wrote:
"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:HMpVd.65511$Dc.1083@trnddc06...
me wrote:

Dear Mr. Brown:
Please cite proof (i.e. documentation in print or online) of your
assertion that it is illegal, immoral or unethical for a website
author to decide what functions a visitor should or should not have


Dear anonymous@_.com,
Please refrain from using such a condescending tone before you end up in
the killfiles.

--
Signed,
Brian

Dear Brian:
You may, with my blessing, kill file me at your earliest opportunity.
Condescendingly Yours,
me

Me too? plonk

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :( http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein
Jul 23 '05 #36

P: n/a
me
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
"me" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
True, it just makes it less convient.
"Convient"??
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks and the photos popup in a non resizeable window with no
toolbars.


I suppose it comforts you to believe that.


We must take our comforts where ever we can find them. ;-)
I understand that a detriment thief will find a way to steal if they

really
A "detriment thief"??? If someone steals a detriment he' be worse
off than before, no?

--

Stan Brown


My bad, eyesight failing or spell checker malfunction: convenient,
determined. Happy now?
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #37

P: n/a
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:jf********************************@4ax.com.. .
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>The title of my OP defines the target browser.
The title of this newsgroup defines the scope of discussions that take
place here. If you're not talking about authoring for the world wide
web then you're in the wrong place.

If the discussion has gone OT it's not my doing,


If the discussion has always been OT, and your the one pointing out
the IE only part in your subject line, then it is your doing.
I was responding to comments made about my OP.


By pointing out that your OP was only about IE. So you're only
interested in preventing IE users from "stealing" your content? Does
that mean that your content is on an IE only intranet (and hence off
topic) or that you're happy for non-IE users to "steal" as much as
they like (in which case, huh?)?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #38

P: n/a
I wrote:
The basic problem is that it "prevents users from forming a robust
conceptual model of their systems" (to quote Jakob Nielsen slightly out of
context: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011028.html).

If the user interface behaviour is inexplicably different at some sites,
then the average user has more difficulty figuring out what the user
interface is supposed to be, and that affects the usability of all sites
(for that user). Leave the user interface alone, and average users will be
better off. Do whatever you want with your site, but leave the user
interface alone.

me <anonymous@_.com> wrote: IIUC your objection is philosophical[...]


You do not understand correctly.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped." - African Proverb
Jul 23 '05 #39

P: n/a
On 2 Mar 2005 19:12:35 GMT, Blinky the Shark <no*****@box.invalid>
wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Well, OK, but it's not so much like locking your front door
as it is like hanging a length of string across the entryway.
You just made me think of this image:
http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/winsecurity.jpg


ROTFL :-)

--
Rex

Jul 23 '05 #40

P: n/a
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:28:45 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
> I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
> right clicks
Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers ...


.... [ etc ] ...
The title of my OP defines the target browser.


Fair enough; but what Darin is trying to brief you about is that as soon
as you let one (ore more) of your pages "lose" on the www, you have at
the same instant "lost control" of how they will be received.

You just can not know how any one of a potential 6,5 billion humans
around this world will see what you have made available.

If you want to "target" a specific browser you are at the same time
saying "I don't care for the rest" who may want/need to use other
browsers.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #41

P: n/a
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jan Roland Eriksson wrote:
If you want to "target" a specific browser you are at the same time
saying "I don't care for the rest" who may want/need to use other
browsers.


This seems to be the opposite of what the OP wants: he's asking to
apply a disability to IE, while leaving all the WWW-compatible
browsers fully-functional.

Jul 23 '05 #42

P: n/a
me
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
I wrote:
The basic problem is that it "prevents users from forming a robust
conceptual model of their systems" (to quote Jakob Nielsen slightly out of context: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011028.html).

If the user interface behaviour is inexplicably different at some sites, then the average user has more difficulty figuring out what the user
interface is supposed to be, and that affects the usability of all sites (for that user). Leave the user interface alone, and average users will be better off. Do whatever you want with your site, but leave the user
interface alone.


me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
IIUC your objection is philosophical[...]


You do not understand correctly.
--
Darin McGrew


I understand that you did not object on legal, moral or ethical grounds. If
those are not your reasons then clarify.
Sign,
me
Jul 23 '05 #43

P: n/a
me
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:17********************************@4ax.com...
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:jf********************************@4ax.com.. .
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

>The title of my OP defines the target browser.

The title of this newsgroup defines the scope of discussions that take
place here. If you're not talking about authoring for the world wide
web then you're in the wrong place.

If the discussion has gone OT it's not my doing,


If the discussion has always been OT, and your the one pointing out
the IE only part in your subject line, then it is your doing.


You are freely participanting in this discussion that you call OT.
I was responding to comments made about my OP.


By pointing out that your OP was only about IE. So you're only
interested in preventing IE users from "stealing" your content? Does
that mean that your content is on an IE only intranet (and hence off
topic) or that you're happy for non-IE users to "steal" as much as
they like (in which case, huh?)?

Steve


I wish to deter IE users from stealing from my site and since they represent
the vast majority of my visitors this will go a long way toward protecting
my IP. I'm not on an intranet. If you can suggest a way to prevent users of
other browsers from stealing my IP I'd like to hear about it.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #44

P: n/a
C A Upsdell > wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
C A Upsdell > wrote:
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">
You, as an author, have absolutely no right to disable a user's user agent
feature... Keep in mind that it is a *user agent*, not an author agent!


Bullshit.


I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with animal faeces, please keep
this dicussion on topic.
I am normally in favour of letting the user have control over
their browser, but the image toolbar is an exception.
No it's not, the user agent provides it as a usability feature for the
user to perform common image related functions, why should it not be the
user agent/user that decides whether or not it displays?

In the first place, for MOST pages there is no reasonable likelihood
that users would want to use this toolbar's functions
Based on what evidence? Who are you to decide what a user, other than
yourself, does or does not want?

, and for such sites the toolbar is EXTREMELY intrusive.
Intrusive for the user or intrusive for you, the author, because it's
displayed on top of your precious images? Some user's may find it
intrusive, but as already stated they have the option to disable it if
they choose.
In the second place, for most pages, in the very rare instances where a
user might want to carry out such functions, there are other ways of doing
them.

Indeed, but if that were a successful argument, the it would also apply
to the common practice of disabling the context menu. Functions such as
View Source, etc. are mostly available from the other menus, so based on
that logic it would be acceptable to do so. However, it is not because
it interferes with the way many users make use of the application.
Additionally a user that likes the image toolbar may be unaware of the
other methods to achieve these functions.
And in the third place, if there is a page in which there is a reasonable
likelihood that the user would want to use the toolbar, it is easy to omit
the meta tag for that page.
Again, who are you to decide what a user, other than yourself, does or
does not want?
The bottom line on this is that IE (the only browser to support such a
toolbar)
Precisely, it is the *only* user agent to support such a feature, so if
IE had a much smaller market share (eg. < 5%), would you still promote
the use of this proprietary markup to disable the feature?
[IE} is too stupid to tell whether or not a given image should have
such a toolbar, and therefore it is reasonable for the designer to help
IE out by supplying the intelligence that IE lacks.


The user agent's logic for determining whether or not to display it for
a certain image may not be the best and it would probably be better if
the user could configure the conditions under which it appeared.
However, that still does not give any right to the author to interfere
with a user agents function intended as a feature for the user!

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 23 '05 #45

P: n/a
me wrote:
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks
That won't intefere with me opening the context menu. I may get the
alert box, but all I have to do is click ok and the context menu will
still appear. Also if I temporarily disable script, I won't even see
the message.
and the photos popup in a non resizeable window
Not in my browser, they can't. I've configured any attempt to use
window.open() to simply replace the current window like a regular link.
with no toolbars.


My browser retains all toolbars all the time, so that's just a load of
rubbish.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 23 '05 #46

P: n/a
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:59:57 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
[...]
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks and the photos popup in a non resizeable window with no
toolbars. You are correct that no form of protection is perfect.


You won't stop a real image thief with those techniques, and they will
inconvenience an honest power user who likes her right click and
ability to open a new image or page as she wishes. What you can do
something about is to educate the nontechnical casual viewer who is
basically honest but just plain ignorant of copyright and intellectual
propery law. For them, just put a note on the page that the images are
your property, and not to use them without permisssion.

Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Jul 23 '05 #47

P: n/a
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:rh********************************@4ax.com...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 12:28:45 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
> I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user > right clicks Maybe. Maybe not. Better browsers ...
... [ etc ] ...


Darin is entitled to his opinion about what constitutes a better browser as
are you.
The title of my OP defines the target browser.


Fair enough; but what Darin is trying to brief you about is that as soon
as you let one (ore more) of your pages "lose" on the www, you have at
the same instant "lost control" of how they will be received.


IMO if I can deter IE users from stealing my IP I will have solved nine
tenths of my problem.
You just can not know how any one of a potential 6,5 billion humans
around this world will see what you have made available.

If you want to "target" a specific browser you are at the same time
saying "I don't care for the rest" who may want/need to use other
browsers.

--
Rex


IMO: "I don't care for the rest"
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #48

P: n/a
me
"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
me wrote:
I already have a script installed that displays a message when the user
right clicks


That won't intefere with me opening the context menu. I may get the
alert box, but all I have to do is click ok and the context menu will
still appear. Also if I temporarily disable script, I won't even see
the message.
and the photos popup in a non resizeable window


Not in my browser, they can't. I've configured any attempt to use
window.open() to simply replace the current window like a regular link.
with no toolbars.


My browser retains all toolbars all the time, so that's just a load of
rubbish.

--
Lachlan Hunt


My OP dealt with IE only therefore observations about your browser's
operation do not apply.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #49

P: n/a
"me" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

IMO: "I don't care for the rest"


Folks, I do believe we've been trolled!

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 23 '05 #50

102 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.