By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,263 Members | 1,577 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,263 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?

P: n/a
Hi everybody.

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
mouse. I've tried the next solution, in the body of the page I put the
next code:

<BODY onkeydown='notOpenNewWindow();'>
And I wrote this javascript function:

function notOpenNewWindow(){
if (window.event.keyCode=='16'){
window.event.keyCode = 0;
window.event.returnValue = false;
}

But this solution is wrong because the new window is opened.

Could anybody help me?

Thanks,

Carlos.
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
44 Replies


P: n/a
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
Hi everybody.

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
mouse. I've tried the next solution, in the body of the page I put the
next code:


Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
In article <o4********************@comcast.com>, hi************@aol.com
enlightened us with...
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
Hi everybody.

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
mouse. I've tried the next solution, in the body of the page I put the
next code:


Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?


What happens when I middle mouse click in Mozilla or Opera? ;)
(hint to OP: I set it up so middle mouse click opens links in a new
window)

--
--
~kaeli~
Reading while sunbathing makes you well red.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Ivo
"kaeli" wrote
hi************@aol.com enlightened us with...
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
mouse. I've tried the next solution, in the body of the page I put the
next code:


Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?


What happens when I middle mouse click in Mozilla or Opera? ;)
(hint to OP: I set it up so middle mouse click opens links in a new
window)


And what if I press Ctrl-N? And what if I get so annoyed by these clueless
pointless scripts that I disable script altogether?
Design your page to allow these browser tricks, that is the way of the web.
You don't give us the reason you think you need to do disable this, my guess
is because it 's weak and/or not well thought through.
Amen,
Ivo.
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
"Ivo" <no@thank.you> wrote in message news:<40***********************@news.wanadoo.nl>.. .
"kaeli" wrote
hi************@aol.com enlightened us with...
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
> I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window when you
> have pressed the shift key and you click in the left button of the
> mouse. I've tried the next solution, in the body of the page I put the
> next code:

Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?


What happens when I middle mouse click in Mozilla or Opera? ;)
(hint to OP: I set it up so middle mouse click opens links in a new
window)


And what if I press Ctrl-N? And what if I get so annoyed by these clueless
pointless scripts that I disable script altogether?
Design your page to allow these browser tricks, that is the way of the web.
You don't give us the reason you think you need to do disable this, my guess
is because it 's weak and/or not well thought through.
Amen,
Ivo.

Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.


No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.

Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.

And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:

Carlos Andr?s wrote:
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.


He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.

If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.
Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.

And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.


Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.

No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for
the web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to
get.


I think this is flawed thinking, and it's littering this newsgroup.

The default assumption for a (well-worded) question should always be that
the OP has a justified reason to do what he or she is trying to do, and is
looking for an answer to the QUESTION, not general discussion on the
correctness of their design decision. (In some cases, the posting style of
the original post makes it obvious that the OP has no clue about what they
are really asking).

If someone has an answer to the original question, or can point the person
in the right direction, and _then_ decides to also note that there are
potential problems with the idea, then that's great.

But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb to even
think about doing what they're doing, all making the assumption that the OP
is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea to do this in an internet
environment, is elitist behavior that reduces the effectiveness of the
group. IMO.

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
Ivo
"Randy Webb" wrote
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application.
An intranet, I didn't know that, that changes things, but not all things.
And it still doesn't say why they want this disabled. A good reason would be
the revelation of sensitive data, something that breaches security or so, is
there a problem like that? Then it may be time to redesign the whole site.
The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
Reason?
I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine.


My earlier advice could very well be taken as critique (I think your company
sucks) as well as as a warning. And a genuine one. Unless you have divine
control over each computer in your intranet, you do not know what browsers
may be used, and you don't know all the ways new windows can be opened.
Someone could type in the addressbar:

javascript: na=window.open();na.document.open();na.document.wr ite
(document.documentElement.outerHTML);na.document.c lose();

which simply duplicates the current window (in some browsers) regardless of
any script in the page, or

javascript:for(var (i=document.links).length;i--;) i.target="_blank";

to make all links open in a new window just like that, even without shifts.

Again, it is the way of the web, also the intraweb.These technologies are
not as one-dimensional as some people, especially people in companies,
appear to think sometimes. If this is your job, you should explain these
things to whomever asked you this script, since they clearly have no idea.
Also disabling the right mouse button does not sound like a good idea. Don't
you ever want to copy something, add a page to your bookmark list, etc. etc.
It is counter-productive, really (I 'm sure your superiors are sensitive to
an argument like that). Because anything you think you have disabled has
only become a bit more cumbersome, but remains possible. I repeat: disabling
the contextmenu disables nothing except the user's sympathy.
But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.

Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.
Javascript is capable of detecting shifts and clicks. It is probably not
difficult to write a script that cancels or changes the default action
associated with a shift-click, but for this situation I don't see the point.
HTH
Ivo
And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/


Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
Matt Kruse wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques. No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for
the web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to
get.


I think this is flawed thinking, and it's littering this newsgroup.


In the event of an OP choosing not to explain the context of their
question some assumption has to be made in order to answer at all. The
FAQ for this group states what the default assumption is, and in the
case of most of the questions asked it is the correct assumption to
make.

If people don't want to be subject to that assumption then they should
follow the detailed advice on the efficient asking of questions provided
in the FAQ.
The default assumption for a (well-worded) question should always be
that the OP has a justified reason to do what he or she is trying to
do, and is looking for an answer to the QUESTION, not general
discussion on the correctness of their design decision. (In some
cases, the posting style of the original post makes it obvious that
the OP has no clue about what they are really asking).
It is somewhat typical that the criteria you would apply would be the
wording of the question. I read the OP and immediately thought that some
incompetent jelly has created an application/back-end that is not suited
for use over HTTP with a web browser front end and is now looking for a
javascript Band-aid in an effort to fix the wrong problem (and I have
seen nothing that has changed my mind).

You would have the OP provided with that band-aid, even though the best
it could do is lessen the problem. I would want whoever wrote the
back-end to be directed toward design and implementation criteria
suitable for HTTP application programming, so at least the next time
they create one this problem wouldn't exist.

The wording has little to do with the response, the asking of this
question is itself an indicator that the OP does not understand what
they are asking for, or its implications.
If someone has an answer to the original question, or can point the
person in the right direction, and _then_ decides to also note that
there are potential problems with the idea, then that's great.
(Yet you want to have your say without positing a single line of code or
word of explanation that addresses the OP's situation.)

There is no right direction in which to point, except back to the
back-end and having it's inadequacies fixed. There is no cross-browser
solution, and any possible IE only solution would not reduce the
stupidity of potentially reducing the productivity of users of the
system by denying them the tools they are used to using in a web
browser.
But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb
to even think about doing what they're doing, all making the
assumption that the OP is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea
to do this in an internet environment, is elitist behavior that
reduces the effectiveness of the group. IMO.


I can see why you may feel that it elitist to recognise and point out
fundamentally flawed design, but your personal standards are not those
of the majority of the regulars on this group.

Incidentally, saying "reduces the effectiveness of the group" implies
that the group has a purpose, it does not, this group does no more than
exist and exhibit behaviour. Insofar as anything approaching a purpose
exists for the group it is no more than to discuss javascript, which is
adequately satisfied by stating that javascript is unsuitable for some
things, or that some things are an extremely bad idea to attempt with
javascript.

The existence of the group has side effects, one of which is much
javascript related problem solving, another is an ever improving
understanding of the use and application of javascript on the part of
its regular contributors (through exposing their explanations, ideas and
scripts to the strongly critical environment of the group), but nobody
has a right to expect (and certainly not demand) anything from the group
as a whole.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
<snip>
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is
intranet, internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific
question, and respondents felt that (for whatever reason) it was
their prerogative to provide advice, commentary, and critiques.

<snip>

So long as responses are on-topic for the group then it _is_ their
prerogative to provide advice, commentary and critiques. That is Usenet;
open, public and free.

If you want the right to demand specific answers to specific questions
then you should expect to pay for those answers, otherwise you will get
what you get.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Lee
Matt Kruse said:
The default assumption for a (well-worded) question should always be that
the OP has a justified reason to do what he or she is trying to do, and is
looking for an answer to the QUESTION, not general discussion on the
correctness of their design decision.

In my experience, very few posters who ask for help doing
something foolish or evil realize that there's any problem.

The few who do will almost immediately respond to criticism
with one of:

I know it's bad, but my boss wants it.
or
I know it would be bad on the Internet,
but this is a special case.

When an ignorant developer does something stupid on the web,
it hurts all of us. I don't like helping them to do that.

Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
Lee
Carlos Andr?s said:

This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.


The correct way to handle that is to tell your users
not to open the links in new windows. If the problem
is so serious that opening a new window breaks something,
then you have a design problem that you shouldn't be
trying to hack around in the user interface.

Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
In article <2f**************************@posting.google.com >,
ka********************@yahoo.es enlightened us with...
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

Really? You do know I can simply change my mouse to be left-handed and
then left click, right?

Your company either hires the mentally challenged or kids fresh out of
school (or maybe both). They get what they pay for. Actually, this
sounds like our lovely time tracking application here where I work. It's
a POS.

I'd be more than happy to freelance and write them a nice, robust
application that won't break from such simple things. Give me more
money, and I'll make sure *nothing* breaks it. ;)
I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.


Poor baby. *world's smallest violin playing in background*
*grin*

--
--
~kaeli~
A boiled egg in the morning is hard to beat.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
Lee
Julie said:

Randy Webb wrote:

Carlos Andr?s wrote:
> This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
> this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
> mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
>
> I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.


No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.


He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.

If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.


And, of course, that is their prerogative, and that's a good
thing, because very often advice, commentary and critiques
are more valuable than answering the original question.

If somebody asks the best technique to use to clean a shotgun
without unloading it, would you be doing them a service by
figuring out some solution that might work, if they're very
careful?

Badly written web applications damage the reputations of all
web application developers.

Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
> > > The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

Here is how a user can reenable the right mouse button.

"riki" <ri******@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c3**********@ls219.htnet.hr>...
and disable right click
See this article for two additonal ways to re-enable the mouse button:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=en...5.33.99&rnum=4

I've copied one below too. I think it is so interensting that you can
run Javascript from the command line.

Robert

"Grant Wagner" <gw*****@agricoreunited.com> wrote in message news:3C***************@agricoreunited.com... ~greg wrote:

If by "bookmarklet" you mean a Favorite that executes code via the
javascript: psuedo-protocol


<snip>

This works!
javascript:function a(){document.body.oncontextmenu=null;document.onmo usedown=null;window.onmousedown=null;}a();

thanks,
~greg

All the user has to do is bookmark this javascript line an run it by
clicking on the bookmark.

You may not like the advise, but you are not accomplishing what you
expect from disabling the keys because the user can get around your
limits. Thus whatever you are trying to protect is exposed.

Robert
Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
On 18 May 2004 11:07:43 -0700, Lee wrote:
If somebody asks the best technique to use to clean a shotgun
without unloading it, would you be doing them a service by
figuring out some solution that might work, if they're very
careful?


LOL - potential sig. material..

[ And assuming no-one else was in line-of
splatter of the shotgun, I'd probably give
them an answer, ..and let Darwinian selection
sort it out. ;-) ]

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb
to even think about doing what they're doing, all making the
assumption that the OP is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea
to do this in an internet environment, is elitist behavior that
reduces the effectiveness of the group. IMO.


I can see why you may feel that it elitist to recognise and point out
fundamentally flawed design, but your personal standards are not those
of the majority of the regulars on this group.


They aren't personal standards -- they are a part of living in a civilized
society -- empower the individual.

There is no majority rule that pertains to this forum.
Jul 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:

Julie wrote:
<snip>
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is
intranet, internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific
question, and respondents felt that (for whatever reason) it was
their prerogative to provide advice, commentary, and critiques.

<snip>

So long as responses are on-topic for the group then it _is_ their
prerogative to provide advice, commentary and critiques. That is Usenet;
open, public and free.

If you want the right to demand specific answers to specific questions
then you should expect to pay for those answers, otherwise you will get
what you get.


So you feel that it is inappropriate for someone to expect and answer to a
question, but more appropriate for respondents to separately arrive at
unfounded conclusions and provide unsubstantiated and unwarranted critiques?
Jul 23 '05 #19

P: n/a
Lee wrote:

Julie said:

Randy Webb wrote:

Carlos Andr?s wrote:
> This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
> this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
> mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
>
> I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.

No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.
He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.

If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.


And, of course, that is their prerogative, and that's a good
thing, because very often advice, commentary and critiques
are more valuable than answering the original question.

If somebody asks the best technique to use to clean a shotgun
without unloading it, would you be doing them a service by
figuring out some solution that might work, if they're very
careful?


I don't see why not? Are you self-presuming some level of authority and
capacity or control over the individual asking the question? Protect them from
themselves?
Badly written web applications damage the reputations of all
web application developers.


I don't disagree.

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to determine that
that it was a 'badly written web application' strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and reasoning, or you
made an assumption.
Jul 23 '05 #20

P: n/a
Lee
Julie said:

Richard Cornford wrote:
> But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb
> to even think about doing what they're doing, all making the
> assumption that the OP is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea
> to do this in an internet environment, is elitist behavior that
> reduces the effectiveness of the group. IMO.


I can see why you may feel that it elitist to recognise and point out
fundamentally flawed design, but your personal standards are not those
of the majority of the regulars on this group.


They aren't personal standards -- they are a part of living in a civilized
society -- empower the individual.


Our civilized society empowers us to choose not to help people
to create designs that we believe are bad.

Jul 23 '05 #21

P: n/a
Lee
Julie said:

Lee wrote:

If somebody asks the best technique to use to clean a shotgun
without unloading it, would you be doing them a service by
figuring out some solution that might work, if they're very
careful?


I don't see why not?


Because it would be irresponsible.

Main Entry: ir·re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'spän(t)-s&-b&l
Function: adjective : not responsible: as
a : not answerable to higher authority <an irresponsible dictatorship>
b : said or done with no sense of responsibility <irresponsible accusations>
c : lacking a sense of responsibility
d : unable especially mentally or financially to bear responsibility

Badly written web applications damage the reputations of all
web application developers.


I don't disagree.

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to determine that
that it was a 'badly written web application' strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and reasoning, or you
made an assumption.


It is completely reasonable to assume that any application that
requires standard controls to be disabled is badly written.

The poster always has the opportunity to appeal that decision
by giving more information.

On the other hand, once we have helped somebody to create a bad
application, we have no such appeal process to prevent them from
deploying it.

Jul 23 '05 #22

P: n/a
Lee wrote:
It is completely reasonable to assume that any application that
requires standard controls to be disabled is badly written.


You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.
Jul 23 '05 #23

P: n/a
In article <40***************@nospam.com>, ju***@nospam.com enlightened
us with...

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to determine that
that it was a 'badly written web application' strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and reasoning, or you
made an assumption.


Because by definition, any WEB (read: internet) application that
requires the disabling of standard controls used by people with
disabilities is badly written.
It is assumed in this group (by the majority of active posters) that any
question pertains to internet usage unless otherwise stated (which the
OP did not). In fact, the FAQ for this group explicitly states such.

Hey, if you want to help people write crap, feel free. Some of us prefer
to point out flaws with the assumption that no one would code flaws on
purpose. I know the people on this group have helped me correct flaws I
didn't know about. Instead of getting pissy, I said something a little
more appropriate. I said "thank you".

--
--
~kaeli~
A bicycle can't stand on its own because it is two tired.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #24

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
Lee wrote:

<snip>
If somebody asks the best technique to use to clean a shotgun
without unloading it, would you be doing them a service by
figuring out some solution that might work, if they're very
careful?


I don't see why not? Are you self-presuming some level of
authority and capacity or control over the individual asking
the question? Protect them from themselves?


Where is the presumption of authority? If Lee decides he does not want
to encourage someone to take a cause of action that he considers stands
a reasonable chance of resulting in that individual shooting themselves
in the foot (or worse) then he is at liberty not to encourage them.
Badly written web applications damage the reputations of all
web application developers.


I don't disagree.

However, I'd be very interested to know how you were able to
determine that that it was a 'badly written web application'
strictly from:

I've got a problem. I'd like to avoid opening a new window
when you have pressed the shift key and you click in the
left button of the mouse.

Either you have incredible powers of targeted analysis and
reasoning, or you made an assumption.


There is no great deduction involved. There are at least half a dozen
ways of getting a web browser to open a link (or even the current page)
in a new window; that is normal and expected behaviour from browsers. An
application operating over HTTP does not have to find the opening of a
link in a new window to be a problem, it should have been authored to
take into account the normal behaviour of web browsers (and the nature
of the HTTP protocol).

A desire to inhibit any aspect of normal browser behaviour implies that
undesirable consequences will follow from their use. So an expression of
any concern about (or even interest in) the fact that a browser may open
a link in a new window implies that the back-end has not been authored
to an appropriate standard for the context of its use (over HTTP with a
web browser client).

With appropriate back-end design the question would never be asked, so
deductions can be made from no more than the fact that it was.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #25

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
<snip>
So you feel that it is inappropriate for someone to expect and answer
to a question, but more appropriate for respondents to separately
arrive at unfounded conclusions and provide unsubstantiated and
unwarranted critiques?


Do you have any grounds for asserting that the conclusions were
unfounded or the critiques unsubstantiated or unwarranted? As I read the
OP, the information provided elicited the appropriate and expected
response. That response may have been modified if the OP had bothered to
provide all of the information pertinent to the question up front, but
not substantially.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #26

P: n/a
Julie <ju***@nospam.com> writes:
You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.


Of course it is. Everybody does it all the time. You assume that we
understand the words that you use, right? Why? Because it's reasonable.

Long time readers of this group has learned what to assume from new
posters. It's not assumptions caught out of thin air, but based on
experience. Yes, the assumptions can fail, but in the long run, making
these assumptions helps a lot of people faster than if they had to
explain their problems themselves (something most people are not
trained to do, and which is obviously not trivial).

These experience based assumptions are even codified in the FAQ (well,
at least some of them). Howeverm, we have also learned not to assume
that new posters have read the FAQ, even though it does answer
questions that are frequently asked :)

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jul 23 '05 #27

P: n/a
Lee
Julie said:

Lee wrote:
It is completely reasonable to assume that any application that
requires standard controls to be disabled is badly written.


You pointed out our own problem -- 'assume'.

It isn't reasonable to assume.


Certainly it is. You couldn't survive a day without assumptions.
What isn't reasonable is to treat an assumption as fact.

Jul 23 '05 #28

P: n/a
Matt Kruse wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for
the web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to
get.

I think this is flawed thinking, and it's littering this newsgroup.


You think that the answer I gave was "flawed thinking"????

this was my response:

Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window.

So would you care to explain how thats "flawed thinking"?

What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?

The default assumption for a (well-worded) question should always be that
the OP has a justified reason to do what he or she is trying to do, and is
looking for an answer to the QUESTION, not general discussion on the
correctness of their design decision. (In some cases, the posting style of
the original post makes it obvious that the OP has no clue about what they
are really asking).
And the very question that was asked made it obvious. The problem is not
in the browser, nor in the new window, its in the back-end that gets
screwed by a new window. Which leaves the *only* sensible answer to be
"redesign the site so that it doesn't break".

If someone has an answer to the original question, or can point the person
in the right direction, and _then_ decides to also note that there are
potential problems with the idea, then that's great.

To date, I have not yet seen you post a possible "answer" to his
question. Is that because you either:

a) do not have an answer
b) dont think it can be done
But, having multiple followups all telling the OP that they are dumb to even
think about doing what they're doing, all making the assumption that the OP
is too stupid to know it's probably a bad idea to do this in an internet
environment, is elitist behavior that reduces the effectiveness of the
group. IMO.


I never said he was "dumb to even try", nor did I make an assumption. I
fail to see how that makes me "elitist" in any sense of the word. Of
course, if you can post a better answer than what I did, then you are
welcome to do so.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #29

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.
No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.

He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.


And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.

If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.
I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
question of my own.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.
Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObject access.
Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.

And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.

Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.


And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite".
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #30

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:

Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Carlos Andr?s wrote:

This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.

I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.

No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.

He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.


And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.


I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.
If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.


I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
question of my own.


Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.

I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.

Again, please point where I've assumed anything.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.


Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObject access.


Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
until brought into the discussion by the OP.

You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.
Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.

And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.

Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.


And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite".


1) Done.
2) Done.
3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
the OPs question.
Jul 23 '05 #31

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote: <snip>
> He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.


And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I
said.


I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"


The subject header of a Usenet post does not constitute a question
(regardless of any superficial similarities), as the FAQ explains.

The only statement in the original post that is terminated with a
question mark (and so unambiguously a question) is "Could anybody help
me?".
Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the
question.

<snip>

Any response made to the only question literally asked in the original
post would qualify as an answer by implication. If any one is helpful
the answer is yes, otherwise no.

But why the obsession with answering the question asked? In most cases a
question asked is an attempt to solve a problem. Solving the problem is
usually more valuable than answering a question literally asked (and
many questions would warrant nothing more than "yes" or "no" as a
response if treated literally, which is not often actually helpful).

Randy's answer proposes that the problem has been miss-identified by the
OP and that the real problem is to be solved elsewhere on the system. A
conclusion that I, for one, concur with, as fixing the back-end both
removes the problem in this application and would encourage whoever
created it not the repeat the error in their next (assuming that the
individual responsible is made to fix the problem so they have to learn
how to do it).

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #32

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
Julie wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:
Carlos Andr?s wrote:
>This web is an internal application and my company have decided that
>this function doesn't work in the application. The right button of the
>mouse also is disabled. This is the reason.
>
>I was looking for some help but I've only found critiques.

No, you got advice. And then you come back and say "oh, its for an
intranet app", which is fine. But the default assumption is its for the
web, and on the web, the answers you got are the only answers to get.
He didn't ask for advice, he asked for answers.
And he got an answer. Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I said.

I did -- you technically gave an answer, but not to the question:


As Richard has pointed out, the only question in the *post* is "can
anybody help", so technically my answer should have been "yes".
"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window. What happens if I right click and "Open in new window"?"

Subject of this thread:

"How to avoid opening a new window with the shift key?"
You are "assuming" that I even read, or can even see, the subject of
this thread. I didn't. Remember this little point, it is referred to
later in this post.

Explain to me, in simple terms, how your 'answer' addresses the question.
Because my experience, not assumptions, tell me that when someone is
trying to prevent a new window, then the problem lies elsewhere. My
experience also tells me that you can NOT stop me from opening a new
window from a webpage, I don't care what script you put in the page. Its
simply a matter of me hitting Shift-Control-N and getting a new Tab. Or,
right clicking and choosing "Duplicate" from the menu in Opera.

If an application has a problem with it being opened in a new window,
which makes it open in 2 windows at once, then the problem lies with the
application, not the duplicate window. That deduction (not assumption)
verifies my original answer.
If respondents could simply answer the question (presuming that they _have_ an
answer), and leave the critiques and advice for later, it sure would make it
easier to get _answers_ to questions.
I never did any of the things you are *assuming* that I did. I made a
statement which was the answer to his question, and then I asked a
question of my own.

Please point where I specifically assume anything about you.


Read above. And, the simple fact that you are replying to my post
implies that you are referring to me. If you are referring to someone
else, then reply to them. Otherwise, I have no choice but to decide that
you are referring to me.

I was speaking generally about the respondents, collectively.
Then why did you quote me, answer inter-leaved in my response?
I don't need to assume, the information and facts are all here in the thread.
You should read it all again then. Nowhere in any of my posts in this
thread have I assumed anything, and you have. At least 3 times. They are
listed again at the end of this post.
Again, please point where I've assumed anything.
See above for the first, below for the others.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not the intended target is intranet,
internet, or anything else. The OP had a specific question, and respondents
felt that (for whatever reason) it was their prerogative to provide advice,
commentary, and critiques.
Now thats where you are wrong. It *does* make a difference whether its
for an intranet or internet application. Try writing code that can write
to the file system and come back and tell me if you can do it on the
internet and whether you can do it on an intranet where you know the
browser to be IE with priveleges set to allow FileSystemObject access.

Within the context of the original question, intranet/internet is irrelevant
until brought into the discussion by the OP.


It is very relevant, and let me give you an example where it *does*
matter. When I go to work, the intranet that I work with is very
specific with regards to OS and Browser. There is a manual that is
approximately 250 pages long that explains how we set up every single
terminal on the intranet (100,000+ terminals). Everything from the color
of the desktop all the way down to the default settings for the
browsers, and including whether the user has access to change any of
these settings (they don't). So, I know beyond any doubt what I can or
can not do on the intranet. If I write an app that prevents a new
window, and manage to get it to work on the intranet, the second I put
it on the web, it will cease to "work" anymore because I no longer have
that control over the browser settings. So yes, it is *very* relevant
whether its an inter/intra-net application before the OP every brings it
in.

You need to be able to make the distinction that for some program domains,
inter/intra _is_ relevant, and others, it _isn't_.
And for this one, it is *very* relevant.
Since it is an intranet app, go to each PC and edit the registry and
remove the entry that deals with the browsers and the ability to
shift-click to open a new window.

And read the FAQ, with regards to posting, providing information, and
posting replies (top-posting) and trimming.
Respondents: read the original question, and answer _THAT_.

Here, you are replying to what I said. That implies that it is,
partially, directed at me. What you failed to realize is that the
recommendation that I offered does indeed work in an intranet
environment, but you are more than welcome to try to change the settings
in the registry on the PC I am on at the moment.
And to you: Go read my reply and READ it. While you are reading, you
might want to read your own replies in this thread, with respect to the
OP's question, and then look up the word "hypocrite".

1) Done.


Then you obviously read where I gave a solution to the problem, and its
the only *viable* solution on an internet site, and very possible on an
intranet site.
2) Done.
Then you see where you are doing nothing to answer the OP, yet you are
complaining about other people not answering the OP? Thats one
definition of the word hypocrite, where its a "do as I say, not as I do"
scenario.
3) Done -- "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or
possess; falseness". I make every attempt to not assume; I make every attempt
to answer the question _asked_ -- please tell me where you feel that I've
deviated from that. You may feel that my responses do not answer the OPs
question, and that is true, but I have not feigned that my responses were to
the OPs question.


1) You assumed I made an assumption when I did not.
2) You assumed I read the subject line while replying, I did not. Nor do
I even care what the subject was. I seldom do.
3) You are assuming that I have not answered the OP, when I did. Two
different methods in fact. The first is for an internet based app, the
second was for an intranet based app. Although the first solution is the
best for either scenario.

None of my answers have been based on an assumption of any kind, they
have been based on my experience and what I read in a post.
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #33

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>
That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book...


If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.

For example:

"There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.
Jul 23 '05 #34

P: n/a
In article <c8********@news2.newsguy.com>, ne********@mattkruse.com
enlightened us with...

On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often emailed responses, I
might add)


Is that like having a girlfriend in Canada?

*grins*

I'm playing - don't get all mad, now. *heh*

--
--
~kaeli~
He often broke into song because he couldn't find the key.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #35

P: n/a
Lee
Julie said:

Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>
That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book...
If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.


Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.

It is not reasonable to insult the OP based on assumptions about
missing information, but it is reasonable to point out that what
they are doing seems to be a bad idea.
Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.


The fact that it ignored the OP doesn't detract from its value.
The OP received several answers.

Jul 23 '05 #36

P: n/a
Lee wrote:
Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.


In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
will give me an answer that works."

I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
you actually observe."

Many times, while the person is gathering the information to meet my
"requirements" they solve their own problem. And if they don't, I then have
all the information I really need in order to fully answer their question.
If they aren't willing to be more descriptive, I ignore them, because if
they aren't willing to invest time in asking a good question, then I'm not
willing to invest time in giving them a good answer.

I sometimes refer people to a post made almost 10 years ago from
comp.lang.perl which addresses the general, common problem of people not
knowing how to ask questions: http://perl.plover.com/Questions.html

There are two keys to getting good answers:
1) Asking the right people
2) Asking the right questions

People definitely need to be trained in #2, and shouldn't be allowed to "get
off easy" by asking sloppy questions and getting good answers from people
who happened to guess correctly about what their problem really was. IMO. :)

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/
Jul 23 '05 #37

P: n/a
Lee
Matt Kruse said:

Lee wrote:
Posters rarely post enough information. It would not be reasonable
to ask each one for all of the information they may have left out.
It is much more efficient to answer the question as well as possible
with the given amount of information and making reasonable assumptions
about what is left out. That will answer the question most of the
time, and will be sufficient to prompt the OP to provide the missing
important pieces in most of the other cases.


In general, I'm not sure I agree with this.
Doesn't it then train users to be lazy in asking their questions?
They'll think, "I'll just ask this, they'll know what I mean, and someone
will give me an answer that works."

I've found that in supporting my own code and answering hundreds of
"support" emails, that it's often a waste of time to guess at the problem
and provide a potential answer. Instead, I often simply respond with
something like, "Did you look at X? In order to answer your question, you
need to provide me with the full html of your page (preferrably a url), a
description of what you expect to happen, and a detailed description of what
you actually observe."


Yes, I wasn't clear. There are many cases when the poster
just doesn't include enough information, or has left some
particular vital piece of information.

But, as in the case that started this thread, we can often
make reasonable assumptions, based on years of answering
similar questions.

Jul 23 '05 #38

P: n/a
Matt Kruse wrote:
<snip>
On the contrary, I contribute quite a lot here (often
emailed responses, I might add)
So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails? That
is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not influence the
tone of the group in any way. Contributions to the group are posted to
the group, anything else is just unrelated activity.

It also seems to carry the same associated problems as multi-posting, in
that contributors to the group have no way of knowing whether you have
already posted a response to any given question, what that response was,
and so do not know when they may be completely wasting their time
repeating explanations that the OP has already received from you. I
would not consider wasting the time of contributors to the group as a
contribution to the group, even if you are not letting on that your are
doing so.

It also deprives the OP of the advantages of having the responses they
get considered by the contributors to the group in general, so that any
issues arising from any individual suggestion can be pointed out. Being
made aware of issues allows people to make informed decisions about how
they can mitigate or avoid them and the more collective experience
available to identify issues the fewer will go unmentioned.
and in the form of my web site,
Your web site is not a contribution to this group, any more than not
posting to the group is a contribution to the group.
which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.
So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?
And although you are quite vocal about things like dynamic select
lists and how they are evil and a good solution isn't really
possible, you have your "solution" up at
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/examp...nt_select.html
which arguably ignores many issues one would need to address when
creating such a solution.
You may not be in a position to appreciate it but I base my statements
about javascirpt on more than just opinion. Prior to concluding that the
dependent select list concept cannot be satisfactorily implemented
exclusively with client-side scripting I have had a go at seeing if and
how the issues can be addressed. You will also find that I tend to
discourage the use of pop-up windows because of the issues arising from
pop-up blocking software, but a google search of the archives will also
reveal that the most complete scripts designed to open new windows while
handling those issues were written and posted by me. And similarly, when
an experiment demonstrates that something can be implemented
satisfactorily I post that code and express that opinion.

<snip> ... . I've opened the door several times for critiques of
my ideas and code, and you've refused to participate in an
exchange of ideas, ...

<snip>

As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw, and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much point
in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions, inefficiencies
and general shortcomings of your code, as the best outcome could be no
more than a bad concept well implemented. But if you want your code
critiqued you only have to start posting it to the group, as someone is
likely to comment on anything you post and I am a very long way from
being the only contributor to this group who would be able to suggest
improvements to your code.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #39

P: n/a
Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>
That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book...

If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.


No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
Paragraph 2.
For example:

"There is no simple answer to the question you asked. Please provide more
context so that we/I can better address your issue(s). Such information such
as {this} and {that}... would be helpful to know before answering."

Unfortunately, the response:

"Then redesign your page so that it doesn't break when its opened in a
new window."

started a subthread that for the most part completely ignored the OP.


No, it started a sub-thread that, in your opinion, ignored the OP.
Perhaps you should re-read the entire thread, from the OP's standpoint,
and see just how much has been said with regards to his problem. Then,
it begs to ask just what his problem was, and the #1 problem with the
original post was a lack of information.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jul 23 '05 #40

P: n/a
Randy Webb wrote:

Julie wrote:
Randy Webb wrote:
<snip>
That I agree with, for the most part. But it puts you back into that
quandary. If you post a reply, and fully explain it, with the
ramifications either way, then you are right back into that eliltist
mode. This thread is a very good example of that very problem. If I had
posted a *full* response, and explained all the scenarios/possibilities,
I would have had to write a full book...

If you or anyone else didn't have sufficient information, then a more
appropriate response would be asking for more information or clarification from
the OP.


No, a referral to the FAQ, where that is explained, is a better response.

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#FAQ2_3
Paragraph 2.


These are _not_ mutually exclusive options.

end.
Jul 23 '05 #41

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails?
That is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not
influence the tone of the group in any way.
I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
So, your criticisms don't really apply.
which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.

So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?


As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not just
theoretical situations.
As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw
Which is an opinion very open to debate.
and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much
point in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions,
inefficiencies and general shortcomings of your code, as the best
outcome could be no more than a bad concept well implemented.
Wrong. You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have very
specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in. Or
techniques used within functions to accomplish a very granular task. That
is, improve the building blocks even if you disagree with what I build with
them. Even if you don't put the pieces into libraries, the pieces themselves
are still reusable.
But if
you want your code critiqued you only have to start posting it to the
group, as someone is likely to comment on anything you post and I am
a very long way from being the only contributor to this group who
would be able to suggest improvements to your code.


Again, Richard, the personal attacks get pretty boring and repetitive.
Perhaps I will post some example code to get recommendations. Feel free to
respond, when I do so.

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/
Jul 23 '05 #42

P: n/a
Matt Kruse wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
So you contribute to the group by sending people personal e-mails?
That is not actually a contribution to the group, and will not
influence the tone of the group in any way.
I don't send technical responses/answers. Rather, advice on how to ask
better questions on how to rephrase posts to be more productive.
So, your criticisms don't really apply.


So you object to the way people will not answer the question asked,
don't post answers to the questions asked yourself and do post private
e-mails to questioners advising them on how to ask their questions?

If you are not willing to answer peoples questions I don't see any
grounds for you to be complaining when others are also not willing to.
which I think is much more beneficial and helpful than random
1000-line followups to newsgroup posts telling people about
some perfect ideal way to develop code, yet never seeming
to demonstrate those practices in real-world situations.

So what are your criteria for "real-world situation"?


As in, used in real-world production sites to solve a problem. Not
just theoretical situations.


Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of being
used on a commercial web site? You imply that code posted to this group
would be in some sense inferior or deficient just by virtue of not being
able to tell whether it had ever been used on commercial web site.
As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw


Which is an opinion very open to debate.


It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly introducing
a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect design in an
Internet browser scripting context.
and you do not even see them as an issue, there is not much
point in my spending any time sorting out the misconceptions,
inefficiencies and general shortcomings of your code, as the best
outcome could be no more than a bad concept well implemented.


Wrong.


Wrong that you don't perceive the needless introduction of a javascript
dependency as an issue? If that is the case why have you just proposed
that it is open to debate? Or wrong that it would be a waste of my time
proposing modifications to your code knowing that you do not perceive
the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw, and so will not fix it?
That is a personal decision, I draw my conclusion form you reaction to
the suggestion that the needless javascript dependency is a fundamental
flaw in your code design, and I react accordingly. Not really something
that can be categorised as right or wrong.
You're welcome to criticize individual functions which have
very specific tasks, independent of the library they may be used in.

<snip>

If you post them someone will comment on them. There is no reason it has
to be me.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #43

P: n/a
Richard Cornford wrote:
Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a result of
being used on a commercial web site?
Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by thousands of users,
yes.
What might be considered a great technical solution, in theory, may turn out
to be completely unusable in practice.
Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful, and
definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable code
that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world, in all
different situations, with different levels of experience, definitely
changes how you approach some things.
Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring. IMO.
As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw

Which is an opinion very open to debate.

It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly
introducing a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect
design in an Internet browser scripting context.


Quit being obtuse.
Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully without
javascript.
Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on javascript, and
pages would fail miserably without javascript enabled, that's still not
_wrong_. There are THOUSANDS of developers out there developing for
environments where javascript will always be enabled and of a certain
version. There's no reason not to develop reusable code for these people,
even if the same code wouldn't work well in an internet environment. You're
the one trying to limit the scope of the code to the one context it might
fail in, not me.
Or wrong that it would be a
waste of my time proposing modifications to your code knowing that
you do not perceive the javascript dependency as a fundamental flaw,
and so will not fix it?


If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet environment
where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it as valid and look at
it differently? Or would you keep your blinders on?

Is good necessarily bad if it could possibly be applied in an inappropriate
way?

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.mattkruse.com/javascript/
Jul 23 '05 #44

P: n/a
Matt Kruse wrote:
Richard Cornford wrote:
Are you saying that code acquires some extra worth as a
result of being used on a commercial web site?
Not necessarily commercial, but open to being used by
thousands of users, yes.


That is not much of a criteria as anything available through a public
URL is open to being used by thousands of users (and that includes
anything ever posted to the newsgroup because of the google archives).
So what is this extra "worth" that is acquired as a result of being
available on a public URL?
What might be considered a great technical solution, in
theory, may turn out to be completely unusable in practice.
You appear to be confused about the nature of theory. A theory is an
assertion; say the assertion that a particular application of javascript
could be implemented without a javascript dependency. Code written to
demonstrate that that was the case is not a theory, it either does dose
make that demonstration or it does not. Code is absolute in nature and
amenable to objective assessment.
Putting theory to practical test by applying it is very useful,
Absolutely, if someone makes an assertion that they cannot turn into a
functional demonstration, at minimum, then the sensible response is to
dismiss their theory.
and
definitely helps in understanding the bigger picture. Having reusable
code that is used by thousands of users and sites around the world,
in all different situations, with different levels of experience,
definitely changes how you approach some things.
Assuming you are talking about yourself, it certainly seems to have made
you complacent.
Developing code without any practical application is pretty boring.
IMO.
As far as I can see there is very little discussion of code that does
not have a practical application on this group. The odd purely
theoretical discussion happens; implementing the Curry function, whether
protected object members can usefully be emulated. They don't have
practical applications but anyone interested in maximising their
understanding of javascript as a language would still be interested in
the techniques needed and the mechanisms involved. And in the end being
able to apply understanding to any practical situation goes a very long
way towards producing an optimum solution.
As I said, when I consider the needless javascript dependencies you
introduce into the majority of your scripts as a fundamental design
flaw
Which is an opinion very open to debate.

It has been debated, often. The consensus is that needlessly
introducing a dependency on an optional technology is incorrect
design in an Internet browser scripting context.


Quit being obtuse.
Most of my code does not introduce a dependency on javascript. It adds
functionality, but very rarely do I code anything that is intended to
deliver content or functionality that cannot be handled successfully
without javascript.
Furthermore, even if my code _did_ introduce a dependency on
javascript, and pages would fail miserably without javascript
enabled, that's still not _wrong_.


While you continue to define data in javascript structures instead of in
the HTML you are introducing a dependency on javascript. It may be the
case that someone using one of your libraries could implement sufficient
feature detecting, fall-back and server based alternatives to mitigate
that dependency but those possibilities are not inherent in more than a
couple of your scripts. And a copy-and-paste philosophy targeted at the
less knowledgeable (without detailed instructions on appropriate
implementation) is not likely to result in the coding of those
additional considerations.

<snip> If I told you that my code would be used only in an intranet
environment where javascript will be enabled, would you then see it
as valid and look at it differently? Or would you keep your blinders
on?

<snip>

It is not necessary to author code to an Internet standard when it is
intended exclusively for use in the known environment of an Intranet.
There remain valid arguments for doing so anyway, but a javascript
dependency in code that was specified as only intended to be executed on
javascript capable/enabled browsers would not normally be subject to
comment.

Richard.
Jul 23 '05 #45

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.