Don't open new windows! [Archive]

Webnauts

10-09-2003, 08:05 AM

Tutorial Revised!!!

Please click here: (http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?p=138155#138155
)

Actually you should not force links to open in a new window or popups (such as with the "target" attribute or with JavaScript).

Changing the current window or popping up new windows can be very disorienting to users who cannot see that this has happened.

As you might also know, JavaScript is not supported by all browsers and some users disable it. When JavaScript is used, it should not be relied upon.

Another fact is, that if you markup with XHTML Strict, the "target=_blank" is not supported!

If you absolutely must open a link in a new window, explicitly warn the user with a clear indication that the page will open in a different window. Provide a title attribute on the anchor tag with a description indicating that the link opens a new window; for example:

European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 (new window) (http://www.eypd2003.org)

If you want to build an accessible pop-up window, add the code below within the head tags of your HTML document:

<script type="text/javascript">
var newWindow = null;

function closeWin(){
if (newWindow != null){
if(!newWindow.closed)
newWindow.close();
}
}

function popUpWin(url, type, strWidth, strHeight){

closeWin();

if (type == "fullScreen"){

strWidth = screen.availWidth - 10;
strHeight = screen.availHeight - 160;
}

var tools="";
if (type == "standard" || type == "fullScreen") tools = "resizable,toolbar=yes,location=yes,scrollbars=yes, menubar=yes,width="+strWidth+",height="+strHeight+",top=0,left=0";
if (type == "console") tools = "resizable,toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=no,wid th="+strWidth+",height="+strHeight+",left=0,top=0";
newWindow = window.open(url, 'newWin', tools);
newWindow.focus();
}
</script>

Above script source: http://www.accessify.com

Then add your link in the body of your document as below:

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (http://www.w3.org/WAI/)

Example see here: http://www.webnauts.net/popup.html

Test this turning off JavaScript to see how it works!

Further reading:

Not opening new windows: http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html
Use interim solutions: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility
Opening a link in a new window: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html

If you still have questions, please feel free to post them.[/code]

JayDrake

10-09-2003, 02:58 PM

Hmm... I disagree. There are instances where opening a new window makes perfect sense, and explicitly warning users is, by and large, unnecessary. Target is entirely non-existant in XHTML Strict, not just _blank, though this is not the case with XHTML Transitional. Unfortunately, most cases where you would really have good reason to open a new window, control over the details of the window is important and you will need to do so using javascript.

In some instances visitors will have javascript disabled or they may have a 'popup blocker' which will not allow new windows to be opened, which may or may not be the most desirable way of dealing with popups. (IMHO requests for new windows should open and unrequested windows should not, or if you click on a javascript link to open a new window that window should open, but if a window is to open when you load a page, the blocker should stop it.)

Webnauts

10-09-2003, 03:53 PM

JayDrake!

If a user's browser doesn't support JavaScript, or the JavaScripts you are using, or if user has JavaScript OFF, will disable your visitor to access your content.

That is why you should avoid as far as possible JavaScript, to avoid running risks on
complications on the end users machines, or while goverment and other
employees are required to disable this feature, for security or other
reasons. Also there is a number of users who are very concerned about
security issues and disable this feature too.

JayDrake

10-09-2003, 04:36 PM

What percentage of users have javascript disabled?

I do a couple of things here. First checking browser usage and checking to see that the majority of the browsers that visit the site have javascript enabled by default. (Noting that experience shows that the average web visitor does not modify this setting.) I also maintain a fairly basic script which resides on pages that make use of javascript, testing each visitor to see if javascript is enabled or not and recording the results. Should a page that is using javascript, for the purpose of opening a window or others, shows that more than 20% of the traffic is not using javascript, more consideration in it's use is necessary. Presently the average on such pages for me shows 96% of to have javascript enabled. In fact, none of the pages show more than 8% as having disabled javascript.

I would hazard a guess that the majority of those few who do have javascript enabled will recognize the need to enable javascript in order to open a window and can do so if they feel the information they are trying to access is important enough.

I'm not a huge fan of javascript myself, seeing it overused in entirely too many places, but sometimes it simply makes sense. Up until recently, for instance, I had a 'tour' of PlanHouse Gallery on our site which opened an appropriately sized window and allowed you to navigate forward and back through a series of photos. This could have been done in any sized browser window, with or without scrollbars, but was much more appealing when sized specifically to fit the photos and interface.

Incidentally, during the 3 months that the 'tour' was available 100% of the 12,643 visitors who viewed the page had javascript enabled and a total of 8,322 visitors clicked through to the 'tour' viewing, on average 10/12 photos.

aventvoy

10-09-2003, 04:56 PM

Hi there,
I have to fully agree whith what JayDrake said.
The use of Javascript and pop up windows is still necessary, and there is no need to "warn" the visitor that there will be such pop up or new window. It is also true that javascript and pop up have been used too much, and is stil (unfortunately) used for adds and/or as a condition to have ones web site listed in some search engines.
When do you want to open a new window? Anytime you give the possibility to your visitor to access some information on another site. What would be the benefit to me if on my home page for example, a link to another web site would cause the visitor to leave and not come back? What about the reciprocal links? You want the visitor to be able to visit them, but you also want him to come back. So once he is done , and closes the "new window", your page is still in front of him.
Pop ups: if an information on your page is just a few sentences, why change page? A pop up window that fits perfectly the text or image is just fine, it is read or viewed rapidly, and the internaut comes back to the main source immediately instead of hitting the "back" button.
I do use these pop ups for virtual tours, and believe me, visitors tend to view these tours more than many other pages, because they know that what they will see is a "concentrate" of the information they are looking for.
So pop ups that are directly related to, and comming from, your web, yes. pop ups that are imposed by another web or that are an add, these are a pain,and should be banned...
Cordially,
Alain
http://www.aventurevoyages.com

Webnauts

10-09-2003, 05:14 PM

The issue here is not only concerning users disabling JavaScript in their browsers. How many do so? 8%?

What about cell phone users? How about sight impaired users? How much percent are they?

My collegue Jakob Nielsen say's about this:

"JavaScript in Links

Links are the Web's basic building blocks, and users' ability to understand them and to use various browser features correctly is key to enhancing their online skills.

Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. When they want the destination to appear in a new page, they can use their browser's "open in new window" command -- assuming, of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the browser’s standard behavior.

Users deserve to control their own destiny. Computers that behave consistently empower people by letting them use their own tools and wield them accurately."

Source: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html

By the way, can someone tell what is coming up with XHTML 2.0? I did not look in this issue yet...

JayDrake

10-09-2003, 05:21 PM

Yay! Let's gang up on the moderator! (Just kidding!) Seriously, though...

When do you want to open a new window? Anytime you give the possibility to your visitor to access some information on another site. What would be the benefit to me if on my home page for example, a link to another web site would cause the visitor to leave and not come back?

In this particular case I would use the target attribute and have the page using the target attribute be set as XHTML Transitional rather than Strict. Your only need here is to open another window and the only consideration here is that you're letting spiders crawl along this link to the other person's site which might help them out some. I figure that if I'm referencing another site, they deserve that sort of credit. I'd certainly be happy to receive the same.

Pop ups: if an information on your page is just a few sentences, why change page? A pop up window that fits perfectly the text or image is just fine, it is read or viewed rapidly, and the internaut comes back to the main source immediately instead of hitting the "back" button.

Yup. A really good example is a help system whereby you educate your users that when they see a help icon they can click on it for more information. I use these alot in forms, especially where there is possible uncertainty as to what is expected to be put in a given field. As for the back button, it's evil. It's particularly evil in framed sites (which I dislike for many other reasons anyway) and can also be troublesome for some dynamic sites, requiring your visitor to first hit back and then refresh. I try to keep my visitors from needing to do anything of the sort.

JayDrake

10-09-2003, 05:42 PM

The issue here is not only concerning users disabling JavaScript in their browsers. How many do so? 8%?

What about cell phone users? How about sight impaired users? How much percent are they?

Ahh... what about these users, indeed! If I'm designing a site for cell phone users, there are a completely different set of rules I would need follow. I'm not, however, and I've yet to see such a user recorded in any of my statistics.

As for those with disabilities, this is being very well addressed in the CSS community. (As are a number of other 'media' issues such as print and even the aforementioned cell phones.) Cold as it may sound, however, unless these visitors reach a percentage of the visitors that would give good return, they will be considered in the same way as those who use text based or non-compliant browsers. A minority for whom the work to market to them is not worth the gain from doing so.

I would consider this not to be so in the case of sites which are more informative in nature rather than commercial.

Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. When they want the destination to appear in a new page, they can use their browser's "open in new window" command -- assuming, of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the browser’s standard behavior.

This makes a great number of assumptions, mostly about user's experience and understanding of the browser they use. Working with users in businesses who use their computer and web browser all the time, I find that very few would know to right click on a link, let alone to open it in a new window or even have considered that they might want to for some reason. Those who do are experienced enough not to be disoriented by something as simple as a 400x300 pixel window with no scrollbars opening to present them with information. Such a window should surely be well presented, and I personally make a point to always include a 'close this window' link on my windows and recommend the same for others.

Users deserve to control their own destiny. Computers that behave consistently empower people by letting them use their own tools and wield them accurately."

I only see this as true to a certain extent. Yes, users should not be bombarded with popups that won't stop. No, users should never be trapped and forced to close out their browser in order to get away from a page. But these things should be obvious anyway. Javascript should be used, but to enhance rather than detract from a user's experience. It is preferred that other tools be used when possible, but for some things, javascript is the correct tool.

Webnauts

10-09-2003, 05:59 PM

JayDrake

10-09-2003, 06:20 PM

Well do be more specific, targeting a link to open in a new window violates the W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1], and (if you're in the United States or other country with comparable anti-discrimination legislation) is quite possibly illegal under federal civil rights law.

I don't even know what to say to this other than why is it that all the many magazines published in this country aren't forced to publish large text format or audio versions of their productions in order not to discriminate against potential subscribers? The answer is that it is not discriminatory. Similarly, one needn't publish one's site in every written language that is spoken in the United States, and I'm sure a great number of other things could be considered in the same way.

Radical changes of focus in a GUI environment are extremely disorienting to blind users who are navigating by screen reader, and thus can be considered discrimination against the visually impaired.

Opening a link in a new window also breaks the back' button on the browser, preventing back-tracking in navigation.

It also bypasses the tabbed navigation in Galeon and Mozilla, irritating users of that feature.

If your user wants to open the link in a new window, he or she can do so quite easily with most browsers; there is no need to force the issue.

It's about leaving the user the freedom to navigate in the way that works best for him or her.

Each of these are addressed in comparing statistics to revenue streams. Business is not about pleasing everybody. It's about making money. I myself am a linux user because I like the freedom that comes with it, and were I creating sites solely for my own use I would do so to suit Firebird, my browser of choice, as 100% of my traffic would be using that browser. As I cannot please everyone, however, I look to my statistics to show me how I can best please the majority, and I'm sorry if what I do annoys, troubles or even at times discludes a small percentage of visitors, but the battle of fact and feeling should always be won by fact in business.

Webnauts

10-09-2003, 06:45 PM

Accessibility has 'business benefits' as potential increased audienced, reduced bandwidth costs, good PR and much more.

Please have a look at these resources. You might begin thinking different.

Why Accessible Web Design is important for Business: http://www.scotconnect.com/show.php?contentid=81

Auxiliary Benefits of Accessible Web Design: http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html

Attractive, Accessible Web Sites (AKA disproving the myth of ugly) http://www.accessify.com/articles/attractive-accessible-sites.asp

Webnauts

10-10-2003, 08:53 AM

Here are some other facts on this topic by IBM:

"7. Second browser windows
I've saved this one for last because it's especially hard to believe -- some people can use Windows applications for years without understanding the concept of task switching. (When I point to the task bar and ask them what it's for, they can't tell me.) Thus, spawning second browser windows can completely throw users off track because it removes the one thing they are sure how to use: the "Back" button.

In one study, a site provided links to related books on Amazon.com, which opened in a second browser window. Using Amazon wasn't relevant to our test, so as soon as the page came up the users tried to back out. One pair of users, upon discovering the grayed-out "Back" button, looked at each other with something akin to horror. They were quite honestly stumped and had no idea how to proceed. After a couple minutes of discussion, they finally closed the second window. In another recent study, six out of 17 users had difficulty with multiple windows, and three of them required assistance to get back to the first window and continue the task.

Suggestion: Avoid spawning multiple browser windows if at all possible -- taking the "Back" button away from users can make their experience so painful that it usually far outweighs whatever benefit you're trying to provide. One common theory in favor of spawning the second window is that it keeps users from leaving your site, but ironically it may have just the opposite effect by preventing them from returning when they want to.

Suggestion: If a second window is necessary, provide an obvious "close" or "back" link and don't provide navigation to other parts of the site; some users will blithely continue their task in the second (often smaller) window, which can lead to further confusion."

Whole article here: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability

JayDrake

10-10-2003, 10:00 AM

One pair of users, upon discovering the grayed-out "Back" button, looked at each other with something akin to horror. They were quite honestly stumped and had no idea how to proceed. After a couple minutes of discussion, they finally closed the second window. In another recent study, six out of 17 users had difficulty with multiple windows, and three of them required assistance to get back to the first window and continue the task.

This study doesn't necessarily show that opening new windows is bad. In fact, what it looks like to me is that opening new windows is perfectly fine, so long as certain items are considered.

In the Amazon example, the new windows are opened either full screen or default window size. This is starkly different from a window which opens to a specific (small) size such as the 400x300 pixel window I related in an earlier post. Additionally, as also already noted, newly opened windows -should- have some way of prompting the user to close the window, be it a 'close this window' button or some simple text telling the user to close the window when they are done to get back to the web site. This should be in the new window, not in the explanation of the link as the user won't be confused until they get there, and then they theoretically don't know how to get back to figure out what they are supposed to do. Utilizing a small window also gives an additional visual cue of seeing the originating page behind it, where a user might recognize that they can click on that page to get back to it. (The more obvious ways to resume as you were the better.)

Regarding the back button being familiar, how much more familiar is that little X at the top right corner of most users windows? It's certainly more prolific beyond the browser, and most users of any level recognize it as a way to fix any problem that doesn't warrant a ctrl-alt-del. ;)

Suggestion: Avoid spawning multiple browser windows if at all possible -- taking the "Back" button away from users can make their experience so painful that it usually far outweighs whatever benefit you're trying to provide. One common theory in favor of spawning the second window is that it keeps users from leaving your site, but ironically it may have just the opposite effect by preventing them from returning when they want to.

Suggestion: If a second window is necessary, provide an obvious "close" or "back" link and don't provide navigation to other parts of the site; some users will blithely continue their task in the second (often smaller) window, which can lead to further confusion."

'Avoid spawning' is not equal to 'do not spawn', and I agree with what's written here entirely. Opening new windows should not be used carelessly. Such should be used only with good, specific goals in mind.

mysticlighthouse

10-10-2003, 04:51 PM

Maybe this is just too easy of an answer, but whatever happened to the noscript tag? If they have it turned off, then everything is cool.

Webnauts

10-10-2003, 07:40 PM

How could I forget the "noscript" tag?
Sorry! But when I build pages with links opening new windows, I do use the "noscript" tag.

Here one page of one of my web sites:

http://www.webnauts-akademie.de/online.html

Sure there are some little issues to be fixed, but I am planning them in the near future.

mysticlighthouse

10-12-2003, 08:24 PM

Unfortunately, I do not have that same luxury... if there is javascript anything, then there must be a noscrpt tag... my day job (web developing for a bank) requires that all popups have a noscript which would take them to the page that would have been popped up... then the link at the top right of the screen would either close the window for the popped window or in the case of a noscript would send them back to the referring page. Yeah it's a pain, but once it becomes regular practice and is a coldfusion tag.. life is easy.

matauri

10-14-2003, 01:17 PM

As I have been following this thread, I have read your links & read some others. (an ironic note is that the links on this thread open in another window)

While I agree accessibility is an important factor, I think that sometimes this can be overkill. There really has to come a time where compatability with everything draws the line. In no other industry is this such an issue.

The Sydney Olympics website I hear got taken to court over accessibility citing discrimination against some users. While I am not sure what exactly on the site made it so inaccessible (maybe javascript?), I found this to be a bit of overkill.

And when we talk about discrimination against users, I did also read that loading times can also be included, discriminating against slower connections. Maybe all the flash sites, etc should be targetted also. I'm disadvantaged because I cant read German on a German site, maybe all sites should be multilingual?

Like I said, there has to be a cut off point. Some one somewhere is going to be disadvantaged by most of the sites on the web, unless of course we go back to writing plain text.

A question came to mind though....Do disabled people have 'back' buttons? My understanding was that with voice activated ones going to another window is no different to commanding it to go back. For all other keyboard commands, tabbing between windows seems a lot more logical. On that note, there are many ppl out there that have RSI & other wrist & forearm disabilities. Tabbing between windows seems a much more comfortable alternative to going back all the time.

If we stop having new windows open for links, then the time will come that people will stop reciprocating links. No one in their right mind is going to send people away from their site. The 'back' button is just not sufficient for this use. Often the original page is lost in the many others visited after.

In regards to new fixed size windows, I see you refer to them as popups, tho I dont class them as popups because they are a requested link. If you only have a small portion of information or an image, why waste peoples bandwidth & payloads with page structure of a full window. A new fixed size window is by far the more logical.

If you make a web designer spend more time making a site accessible, compatable & able to be validated, the sites are going to cost more to build. Outprice the market, and we will have a net full of roughly put together sites because the consumers & small business man just will not want to spend money satisfying the minority. And you can bet that those sites wont be accessible, compatable & valiadated. Or we could jsut go back to plain old text sites.

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Cindy

bradmc

10-15-2003, 07:13 PM

If you make a web designer spend more time making a site accessible, compatable & able to be validated, the sites are going to cost more to build. Outprice the market, and we will have a net full of roughly put together sites because the consumers & small business man just will not want to spend money satisfying the minority. And you can bet that those sites wont be accessible, compatable & valiadated. Or we could jsut go back to plain old text sites.

On the other hand, smart web design shops are already building accessibility into their templates or other code base on which they build sites and systems. And they're sending their designers to accessibility courses, and buying them accessibility books, so that they think in terms of accessbility and usability from the ground up. And companies like Macromedia that write design tools like Dreamweaver have been including this functionality in their products for several versions now.

To create an accessible and usable site doesn't cost any more than not doing it, it simply requires a small shift in thinking and tooling. What little initial cost this does have pays off with a lot of leverage. Larger companies care a lot about accessibility and usability, where even a minority percentage of visitors still represents a significant number and wide variety of people. And as always, consumer and small business site owners automatically benefit in the wake of the larger companys' efforts. It's already happening on a fairly large scale as we speak.

Btw, I would contend that we already have a net full of roughly put together sites ;-)

Brad

thiefware

10-16-2003, 01:21 AM

Webnauts wrote:

Well do be more specific, targeting a link to open in a new window violates the W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1], and (if you're in the United States or other country with comparable anti-discrimination legislation) is quite possibly illegal under federal civil rights law.
About a JavaScript popup being illegal... where the devil was this contrived from?? That's crazy.

I hate the auto-popup unless it serves a particular function that actually helps. But a link tied to a JavaScript popup is fine by me as long as I clicked it and it does it's job—no problem with that.

Various webmasters will run down Javascript. I however, find it incredibly useful. How else could anyone easily incorporate the AdSense ads into their pages??? Huh??? There is no easier way. In fact, I hope we see tons more uses for JavaScript. I actually hope that we see 50% JavaScript and 50% html being utilized one day.

JavaScript is a wonderful little scripting language that is sorely misunderstood and portrayed as a security risk that it is definitely NOT. The real security hazard is ActiveX, NOT JavaScript. I can create a whole shopping cart system utilizing JavaScript and take away much of the server load except for when the order is sent via CGI.

JavaScript is much more useful than most webmasters care to give it credit or could even dream up. There are tons of tasks where JavaScript would actually do a better job than plain old HTML or other server-side operations that could be done on the client-side. Many webmasters are blinding themselves to it's power. I for one will promote it and use it and will hopefully show people one day that it can be the key to making lots of money honestly on the net. Google's already doing it!! Wake up and start being a friend to JavaScript.

matauri

10-16-2003, 02:51 AM

To create an accessible and usable site doesn't cost any more than not doing it, it simply requires a small shift in thinking and tooling. What little initial cost this does have pays off with a lot of leverage. Larger companies care a lot about accessibility and usability, where even a minority percentage of visitors still represents a significant number and wide variety of people. And as always, consumer and small business site owners automatically benefit in the wake of the larger companys' efforts. It's already happening on a fairly large scale as we speak.

And what happens to the small web design business owner? Or even the one man outfits? It's all well & good to say there are courses, tools, etc., but the little man is going to find it harder as the demand increases. Those few hours here & there & those extra tools mean $$'s.

I am not saying that there should be no regard to accessibility, but there has to be a bit of compromise. Isn't this advocating the same kind of thing that Gates went to court for? Larger corps (Macromedia,etc) holding the market on web design? You cant have small business being sued for non-compliance. It's also unreasonable for the small business owner to either be:
1. totally up-to-date with acessibility/authentication rules & regs so as not to make any mistakes & break laws in their web design
OR
2. give it up, and seek out new employment.

Are all magazines & books written in braille or have audio capabilities? Do all shops have ramps? What about text written in red, some people cant see the colour red, and how many things are there around in society written in red. Watch out Coca Cola!

There are hundreds of different types of disabilities. Exactly how many of them would be inconvenienced by a link requested coming up in a new window?

Cindy

bradmc

10-16-2003, 07:08 AM

And what happens to the small web design business owner? Or even the one man outfits? It's all well & good to say there are courses, tools, etc., but the little man is going to find it harder as the demand increases. Those few hours here & there & those extra tools mean $$'s.

Speaking as someone who works for what would probably be considered a small web design business, it's not nearly as a big a deal as I think you're under the impression it is.

All the information you'd ever need is freely available online. For people who prefer a book, a good book on the topic costs no more than a book on Flash, or CGI, or Apache, or anything else a developer might spend time learning. Validation tools are freely available online, and even built into popular tools used by small shops and one-man outfits, like Dreamweaver. The time invested is no different than the time one has invested in learning html, cgi, etc, or keeping up with the latest trends.

Someone who doesn't already invest at least some free time in keeping up with the technology of the industry is probably already doing shoddy work anyway, no matter how small their operation. Staying on your toes and catering to customers' needs is how small designers land large customers.

Priority 1 compliance is simple stuff. It only covers the most obvious problems. It doesn't cost nearly the time that people already put into learning many other aspects of this business. (again, regardless of the size of the business)

What about text written in red, some people cant see the colour red, and how many things are there around in society written in red. Watch out Coca Cola!

I think you're misunderstanding color-blindness. People who "can't see" red will still see the text. But they'll usually see it as a neutral color instead, like a shade of gray or tan. It's not that the color is invisible to them, it's that they can't distinguish it from other colors. Accessibility simply asks that you don't instruct people to do things like, "click the green link below" and so forth. Iow, don't rely solely on color for things. Simply provide some other way to identify that link or whatever it is.

Priority 1 compliance simply covers the most common of these kinds of things. And unless you're designing in Flash, or something equally inaccessible and unusable, then you're probably already doing the vast majority things right anyway.

You cant have small business being sued for non-compliance.

Agreed. And that's not what's happening. Companies are not routinely being sued for such things, and it's not likely that they will be anytime soon. This is something that will happen slowly over time, and as I was pointing out in the previous post, the big companies will largely subsidize the process of making it mainstream. You're giving it an almost us-against-them spin. Honestly, accessibility is still very much in its infancy, and probably something you won't have to worry much about for quite a long while if you really don't want to.

I think the biggest obstacle to accessibility is that it's not something that individual developers find exciting. In fact, it seems like rather drudging work. The biggest challenge is to get people to overcome the natural resistance to change, and to understand that having at least some level of accessibility as part of your offerings will give you quite a competitive edge. Honestly, it's not that difficult.

Brad

Webnauts

10-16-2003, 08:43 AM

Hi everybody!

To your statements about JavaScript:

I personaly avoid as far as possible using JavaScript, to avoid running risks on complications on the end users machines, or while goverment and other employees are required to disable this feature, for security or other reasons.

Also there is a number of users who are very concerned about security issues and disable this feature too.

I never though said that JavaScript can not accessible or usable. There are for sure techniques
to make client-side scripts as JavaScript accessible and usable.

For an example have a look here: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/gls/g269.html

But about opening second windows or not, I would suggest you to have a look here: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#8

Any further comments?

Webnauts

10-16-2003, 09:15 AM

Hi everybody!

I would suggest you also to have a look at these interesting articles here:

Well mannered JavaScript: http://smallinitiatives.com/journal95_0_1_0_C.html

Also see here:

Links & JavaScript Living Together in Harmony: http://evolt.org/article/Links_and_JavaScript_Living_Together_in_Harmony/17/20938/

Your comments as always, would be very appreciated.

Narasinha

10-16-2003, 11:18 AM

Hello All,

When I decided it was time to redesign my personal web site, I made the decision to make it compliant with certain standards. My redesign is not complete yet, but well under way.

My HTML is compliant with the W3C HTML 4.01 Strict standards.

My Style Sheets are compliant with W3C standards.

My pages are compliant with U.S. Section 508 accessibility standards.

My pages conform to the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

I've reviewed my pages in several browsers. I have checked it with the Color Blindness utility to be sure it is readable under those conditions. When I complete the conversion of the rest of my 450 plus HTML files, I will submit it for evaluation by any who wish to give it a run-through to find accessibility and usability problems. I don't make my living designing web sites (though I used to, as Systems Administrator & lead Designer/Programmer for a small company). I do HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Perl because I enjoy it.

Why have I gone to all this trouble for a simple personal web site where I don't sell anything, where I don't ask for donations, where my monthly traffic has only recently gone over 3000 individual page hits per month?

It's simple, really. I don't want to take a chance that some person who may want to view the information on my web site may not be able to for any reason for which I can compensate. I don't want to shut anyone out. Granted, I'm not fluent in any other language than English, so I don't plan to make my site available in other languages.

Which reminds me of this:

What do you call someone who speaks three languages? Trilingual. What do you call someone who speaks two languages? Bilingual. What do you call someone who speaks one language? An American.

Seriously though, if I were running a small business, and I thought that there might be a chance at all that someone with a disability might turn away from my web site because of accessibility problems, I'd be looking for a new designer.

I constantly see the argument that only a miniscule percentage of the browsers coming to a site have JavaScript disabled, only a miniscule percentage are other than MSIE 5 or 6, only a miniscule percent of prospective customers might be disabled, etc. How much do you take into account word of mouth when you consider your web site's popularity? If someone with macular degeneration can't read your web site because the text was too small and the size was set to a fixed pixel size in the style sheet, how will that person describe their experience to their friends? Where will they recommend others shop online? Can you afford to lose any of that business? How would you like to have a customer telling his friends that he was so happy about his elderly father buying him a new fishing reel for his birthday from your web site, and he didn't even know his father (whose eyesight is nearly nonexistant) knew how to use a computer? You can't pay any amount of money for customer relations like that.

Current popular web browsers are very forgiving when it comes to sloppy HTML. Next year, they may not be so forgiving. When are you going to make sure your site will work under stricter conditions? Are you going to wait unitl your site breaks? Are you going to wait until some percentage of people (greater than miniscule) contact your business to ask why they can't get into your site? Why not do it now?

I'm not handicapped, myself, but know other Internet users who are. I despise links that are simply <a href="javascript: xxxxx"> because I very frequently use my browsers ability to open a link in a new window when I want it to. And I also loathe links that open in a new window without telling me that it will do so. For me it's just a pet peeve. For some, it can be extremely confusing and frustrating. That's the sort of thing that makes me leave a web site for other pastures. I'm sure it does the same for those others.

One other thing about JavaScript (or ECMAScript): NOSCRIPT has some problems in both the document type definitions and browser support. NOSCRIPT does not reflect the same inline and block requirements that SCRIPT contains. When a style is applied to NOSCRIPT in Mozilla (whatever version I was testing) the text was visible all the time, not just when JavaScript was disabled. Even HTML tags contained inside the NOSCRIPT were shown as plain text. So yes, making things compliant can be a headache.

But is it worth it? It's worth it to me, and I'm not making a penny from it. It should be worth it to those who stand to reap the benefits of additional customers, good customer relations, future compatibility, and plenty of good karma. What goes around comes around, and I plan to spread some of that good will, and open my site up to everyone I can.

Jeez... I really got long-winded on this one! Sorry for the rambling, but I guess I got my thoughts across.

Best Regards All,
Narasinha

aplusoptions

10-16-2003, 04:42 PM

Jay wrote

don't even know what to say to this other than why is it that all the many magazines published in this country aren't forced to publish large text format or audio versions of their productions in order not to discriminate against potential subscribers? The answer is that it is not discriminatory. Similarly, one needn't publish one's site in every written language that is spoken in the United States, and I'm sure a great number of other things could be considered in the same way.

I think we should be trying to view this from the point of view of people who have disabilities. In the UK there are 8.5 million people who are classed as having some sort of disability. That's a big percentage to exclude from the Web. Surely wrong from a moral viewpoint,but also commercially disastrous.

When designing web pages try putting them through a text reader, as used by those with visual impairment. You will soon realise how difficult it can be for a user who cannot see that a new window has opened - hence the need to overtly tell users that a new window has indeed opened.

Apart from the moral and commercial considerations there is also the legal. In the UK the Disability Discrimination Act is in force and requires all web sites to show that they have taken steps to enable access. With a little bit of thought accessibility is relatively easy to implement. It does not require you to do away with javascript,multimedia or Flash. Just provide an alternative so users have got a choice. I suggest we all start to take accesibility issues into account.

Markll

10-19-2003, 05:38 PM

You disable javascript.
That is your decision and youe alone are reponsible for not being able toaccess all sites.

Don't want to install Flash? Still your decision not experience the full potential of the web.

I asked GM to build me a car without wheels because I refuse to use the new "round" technology. They said no. Guess I'm just a "square".

Webnauts

10-20-2003, 01:12 AM

Computermark as I said before: "I personaly avoid as far as possible using JavaScript, to avoid running risks on complications on the end users machines, or while goverment and other employees are required to disable this feature, for security or other reasons.

Also there is a number of users who are very concerned about security issues and disable this feature too.

I never though said that JavaScript can not accessible or usable. There are for sure techniques
to make client-side scripts as JavaScript accessible and usable.

For an example have a look here: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/gls/g269.html

But about opening second windows or not, I would suggest you to have a look here: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#8 "

matauri

10-20-2003, 01:37 AM

But about opening second windows or not, I would suggest you to have a look here: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/us-tricks/?dwzone=usability#8 "

That one just does not hold water. I don't know about in Germany, but here a learner driver or a probationary driver can't exceed 80km per hour on the roads. But roads aren't designed for the learner driver, because there are speed limits of 100k/p/h plus. The learner has to learn how to operate between windows. We all had to do it. We didn't all of a sudden jump on a computer & know that windows open with links.

I don't believe learner operators should be grouped in with accessibility issues. The net is accessible to them, they just have to learn how to use it.

I've still have yet to see who we are disadvantaging by using 2nd windows if it isn't using javascript.

Cindy

Markll

10-20-2003, 08:31 AM

The Madison Ave. gurus will tell you to definitely open any a new window for any destination away from your site.

In a perfect world, web designers would be considerate of fellow websites and never use script that disables the back button. If you want someone to be able to return to your site, use the new window.

Example: External links in this forum open in a new window.

I've been in the habit of right-clicking links to open a new winow anyway.

http://localshoppernetwork.com
http://computerlearninganddesign.com

Markll

10-20-2003, 08:39 AM

Webnauts

For someone who seems so passionate about a subject, I would think that your site would reflect what you preach.

Links in your forum open new windows.

Narasinha

10-20-2003, 01:09 PM

Webnauts

10-20-2003, 02:33 PM

Hey Computermark.

My web site is found at http://www.webnauts.net and was build in 2001 were I still was not an expert.

I am working though on my redesign, which will take a little while. A template I am working on is here: http://www.webnauts.net/css_final/second.shtml

About my forum, it is a software made by phpBB, and I am trying to figure out how to enhance its accessibility: http://forum.webnauts.net

I thought though, that the members there should be very happy with the support I offer them!

Narasinha

10-22-2003, 02:55 AM

About my forum, it is a software made by phpBB, and I am trying to figure out how to enhance its accessibility: http://forum.webnauts.net

I should have known better than to log in to post with Internet Explorer... Grrrr.... I'm really starting to loathe this browser. But anyway...

I went to the phpBB web site to see what they had regarding accessibility issues. There has been some discussion about templates that meet accessibility guidelines, going back a couple years, actually. I didn't see any more than initial mention of work though. I didn't find anything about finished templates.

I was going to set up the board on some server space I have that allows PHP, but couldn't get mySQL to work properly. My primary server space has no php or database options, just CGI with Perl (which is my server-side programming option of choice). I've had YABB forum software running there for quite some time. It definitely doesn't meet accessibility requirements. I suppose I could dive into the code and change that. Perhaps a phpBB template that meets requirements would be easier. I looked at the php code and was pleased to see that it isn't tough to follow the programming. I guess once you understand program flow the language doesn't make a lot of difference.

Anyone else interested in forum software the meets accessibility guidelines? (More than U.S. Section 508 - way too lax if you ask me.)

Webnauts

10-22-2003, 12:13 PM

Sure I am interested! And I hope others are too...

HillsCap

12-13-2003, 11:13 AM

Webnauts wrote:

strWidth = screen.availWidth - 10;
strHeight = screen.availHeight - 160;

That works just fine... for single monitor setups. But, if a user has multiple screens, it'll stretch that browser window across all the screens. I work in a field where multiple-screen setups are common (commodities investing).

All I do is use CSS to pop up a little description box about the link (like the TITLE attribute, but better looking, and it allows you to place the descriptive text right into the link text itself), and tell them that it will open a new window. I leave the sizing of the window up to the user.

Here's how I do it (this is for a page that won't open a new window):
<a href="http://www.hillscapital.com/index.shtml" accesskey="h" onclick="update('content','http://www.hillscapital.com/inc/intro.htm');return false;" onmouseover="window.status = 'Home Page'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';">Home
<span>Home Page
</span></a>

Here is a link that DOES open a new window:
<a href="http://www.hillscapital.com/calendar/index/index.htm" accesskey="c" onclick="riskalert();window.open('http://www.hillscapital.com/calendar/index/index.htm','Calendar','');return false;" onmouseover="window.status = 'Commodity Trade Signals, Trade Recommendations And Market Commentary'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status='';">Market Commentary
<span>Commodity Trade Signals, Trade Recommendations And Market Commentary
* Opens New Window *</span></a>

Explanation:
The traditional <a href=... portion will be followed by non-javascript-enabled browsers to index.shtml (which uses SSI to include the intro.htm file). Hence, screen readers/text-only browsers/SE Bots can get to the files.

The accesskey="h" provides for keyboard access to our menus.

The onclick event is triggered for javascript-enabled browsers (right now the onclick event code only works in IE... I'm trying to get NS to play, but NS is junk). It fetches the intro.htm file, and injects it into the content DIV (what is referred to as dynamic client-side includes, or HTML transclusion). Thus, our header, footer, and menus stay loaded, while the content DIV can be dynamically updated from external content.

The onmouseover / onmouseout events, of course, change the status bar message.

And finally, the Home
<span>Home Page
</span> uses CSS to italicize and underline the letter H (making it clear that the letter H is the accesskey), and the SPAN is hidden until the mouse is hovered over that link.

Hence, we have a website that accomodates non-javascript-enabled browsers/bots, provides coverage in the accessibility area, and gives javascript-enabled browsers dynamic content.

The site is designed to use dynamic content because our header holds a commodities quotes ticker, our footer holds a news ticker, and our menu holds a RealPlayer TV newsfeed that is best left loaded and running as the user surfs the rest of our site.

thiefware

12-13-2003, 06:54 PM

People surfing the net ought to be aquainted with new windows being launched and such when a link is clicked. Also I see references about JavaScript being unsafe or a security risk. It's NOT true.

Any bugs that were a security risk are long-long gone with old browsers (version 2 and version 3 browsers). Nobody uses those old-old browsers and if they do, they need to upgrade. Anybody telling you that JavaScript is a security hazard does not understand the nature of JavaScript and current browsers that are less than 3-4 years old.

minstrel

12-13-2003, 07:37 PM

Also I see references about JavaScript being unsafe or a security risk. It's NOT true. Any bugs that were a security risk are long-long gone with old browsers (version 2 and version 3 browsers)... Anybody telling you that JavaScript is a security hazard does not understand the nature of JavaScript
But that's not the point. Many people, including people who probably should know better but don't (e.g., government techies), DO disable javascript. There is also still a lot of older technology out there and sometimes the people using that technology don't have the option of upgrading (e.g., people on fixed incomes, small businesses already struggling with income-expense balances, even some government departments). Therefore, you need to take these factors into account when designing websites - assuming you want those non-javascript-enabled browsers to be able to view and navigate your site.

Accessibility issues, in general, are not about up-to-date versus oudated technology, nor about myths or fallacies regarding security issues - they're about designing websites so people with disabilities or older equipment can still use the site, even if they can't access ALL the features of that site.

You can of course do anything you want on your website, including intentionally dismiss people who don't have certain technologies or won't or can't upgrade - that is entirely your decision and I wouldn't fault you at all if that's the one you made. But bear in mind that if yours is a commercial or service organization, you may be alienating a lot more potential customers than you think - the issue is really about making an informed decision instead of one based on assumptions that may not match circumstances in the real world.

thiefware

12-13-2003, 07:49 PM

minstrel

12-13-2003, 08:17 PM

...the people using that technology don't have the option of upgrading
They can definitely upgrade their browser—NO excuse not to. Browsers are free. They can at least upgrade to netscape 4.79 which will run on just about any machine out there even 100Mhz PC's. No excuse to not upgrade. They can choose to disable, but there's no reason to do that either. People do disable because they've been told by someone that JavaScript is dangerous and that's just nonsense these days.
I think you're missing the point:

(1) People who access your site from offices may not have the choice - installations are often determined by the managers and/or IT departments and altering the installation isn't an option. I do know that many of the people who contact me for my services do so initially from their work computers.

(2) Even people who are using home computers may not have the vaguest idea about how to upgrade or change settings - when my 80 year old father bought a new computer last year, it came set up with what the retailer thought would be best for him. He had no idea what was enabled or disabled and even if he had known he wouldn't have known where to start to change those settings. And as for upgrading, he's using the Netscape browser that was provided to him on a CD by his ISP... he doesn't want to upgrade because it's familiar and even if he did he wouldn't know where to begin.

(Off topic comment: Did you say Netscape 4.79? Ewwww....)

thiefware

12-15-2003, 05:49 PM

Computers bought within the last 3 years are equiped with a late enough browser to not worry about technical issues. Even IE4 that came out 4 years ago is powerful enough to run JavaScript and even though NS4.79 isn't particularly desirable, it will usually run even the most sophisticated of JavaScript routines. Even old versions of netscape like v4.5 that came out 4 years ago will run JavaScript with no problem. In fact v3.x netscape will run JavaScript and it's 6 years old.

Also if people don't know where to begin for updating their versions, all they have to do is go to the search engines to find out or visit bulletin boards and ask. If they can't do that then there's nothing anyone can do for them because they are usually just being lazy about it (except for the extremely technically challenged person who probably doesn't use computers enough to worry about). They will miss out on alot of what's going on. I suspect the amount that don't run scripts and flash is a small percentage of the internet population at any rate. We can't worry about them too much if they resist progress.

We need to stop encouraging people to stay stagnant and not make up excuses for them to not run the most rudimentary aspects of Web sites. Turn on the JavaScript and join the rest of the Web in the 21st century. Some people just need to realize that JavaScript is safe and tell these other nay sayers to stop spreading stupid myths about Javascript.

If people are turning off JavaScript, they must know enough about the browser. They should have no problem upgrading. People totally without a clue hardly know more than the back and forward buttons and the location bar. They know nothing of JavaScript and have JavaScript turned on by default.

As for businesses that allow Web surfing, most have current enough browsers to run any scripting or flash. If admins are disabling scripting, they need to get a clue. What they should be doing is turning off that blasted ActiveX instead. That's the real problem and security risk. Unfortunately, turning off ActiveX also disables flash which is why I have it set to prompt so I can choose.

minstrel

12-15-2003, 06:12 PM

I suspect the amount that don't run scripts and flash is a small percentage of the internet population at any rate. We can't worry about them too much if they resist progress.
Well, you're still missing the point I think... which is that there are people out there who by choice or not by choice don't have javascript enabled. If you are happy designing a site that means they can't use it, that's fine with me. I'm not saying you should avoid using scripting or flash or anything else you want to use - I'm simply suggesting that if you care about potential clients/customers, maybe your site should at least be accesssible to the "lazy" and/or "just plain ignorant" or people who will access the site at their place of employment where the IT department doesn't give them a choice.

thiefware

12-15-2003, 07:09 PM

I understand your points.

Just think that some of us are making excuses for their behaviors and that's a mistake IMO. If more people would encourage them to upgrade or explain to them the importance of JavaScript rather than excusing their actions because of stupid myths, we'd get more of the web surfers moved into the 21 Century.

If everyone would use JavaScript more, they'd have to turn it on to use web sites effectively. I say don't use JavaScript less, use it more.

Narasinha

12-15-2003, 11:20 PM

If everyone would use JavaScript more, they'd have to turn it on to use web sites effectively. I say don't use JavaScript less, use it more.

One other point to keep in mind (which, I believe was the original intent of this thread) is that there are other browsing situations in which JavaScript is problematic. Do you think you will have many visitors to your site using cellular phones or PDAs? What about text-browsers, screen readers, braille output devices, etc. Not everyone will have the capability of using a browsing program that supports JavaScript (preferrably ECMAScript). Using standardized scripting language (through the W3C's DOM) and providing scriptless alternatives is a good practice.

If your site is required to meet accessibility standards (or if you simply prefer to meet these requirements) you must provide alternatives to scripted functions. Using a snippet of script along with an attribute in links that you wish to open in a new window meets these requirements, but only so long as the link will function normally when scripting is disabled.

thiefware

12-16-2003, 04:56 AM

Cellular phones don't read regular web pages so that's a moot issue and I don't think PDAs do either (suppose some PDAs might). We are not designing regular web pages for Cell phone browsers.

As for other limitations like braille output devices, I suspect that'll always be a problem until the software that outputs braille is made to be smarter. Ideally braille output devices should interpret JavaScript just as normal browsers interpret JavaScript. Same goes for screen readers—just need software that is smarter.

Guess there isn't a perfect solution in place. But that should not stop JavaScript from being a standard programming language and accepted as a web standard.

Narasinha

12-16-2003, 10:42 AM

Cellular phones don't read regular web pages so that's a moot issue and I don't think PDAs do either (suppose some PDAs might). We are not designing regular web pages for Cell phone browsers.You might take a look at Products Featuring Opera (http://www.opera.com/products/smartphone/products/) to see that normal, everyday HTML/XHTML web sites are available on cellular phones and PDAs. Opera is included on the Nokia 6600 and Sony Ericsson P900 phones, and the Motorola A920, Psion Revo+, Nokia 9210i, and Sharp Zaurus PDAs. It is also available for download for other devices.
As for other limitations like braille output devices, I suspect that'll always be a problem until the software that outputs braille is made to be smarter. Ideally braille output devices should interpret JavaScript just as normal browsers interpret JavaScript. Same goes for screen readers—just need software that is smarter.Or a couple lines of code in a <noscript></noscript> to let them know what they're missing.
Guess there isn't a perfect solution in place. But that should not stop JavaScript from being a standard programming language and accepted as a web standard.
You nailed that one: there never will be a perfect solution.

ECMAScript (the standardized version of what we all know as JavaScript) is a standardized scripting language, and will remain a part of browsing standards (for the foreseeable future). HTML, XHTML, and XML for content, CSS for presentation, ECMAScript and the DOM for Behavior. Enhanced support for the standards is what we're waiting for. Unfortunately, there will always be limitations. I guess that each site owner has to decide (like with so many other issues) what to support on their pages.

thiefware

12-17-2003, 01:24 AM

Hmmm, I can't imagine surfing regular HTML pages via a teeny tiny cell phone browser. Just seems a bit rediculous. Even the tiny screens on PDAs seems a bit difficult to work with regular HTML pages.

To design regular HTML pages to work with both Cell phones and regular computer monitors is unreasonable because of the immense size difference. The only way to design a site for such tiny screens is to develop a totally seperate site for the tiny resolution. There's no effective way to design one site for both computers and cell phones.

Thing I'm interested in is how many people actually use these enhanced browser based cell phones that can render HTML. Anyone know someone who does or better yet, does anyone here use such browser based cell phones to surf?

Narasinha

12-17-2003, 02:26 AM

To design regular HTML pages to work with both Cell phones and regular computer monitors is unreasonable because of the immense size difference. The only way to design a site for such tiny screens is to develop a totally seperate site for the tiny resolution. There's no effective way to design one site for both computers and cell phones.

I haven't used one myself, and I don't know anyone that has one — yet. Interestingly enough, it looks like meeting the needs of smaller browsers won't be the headache most people think.

Opera uses its "Small Screen Rendering" to reformat pages to fit the smaller screens. If you have a table on your page set to 800 pixels wide, it won't be that wide on a cell phone or PDA. Most handheld devices only have a screen width of 240 pixels, or so I've read. You don't have to do anything special to your current pages. They'll show up on the small browsers, just changed quite a bit. Apparently it "linearizes" tables, displaying the cell contents one at a time down the page.

Here's where it gets interesting though. Many sites have separate versions of a lot of their pages designed just to be printed. Now you're thinking you have to have another version for cell phones and PDAs. Using CSS for all of the presentation aspects of your pages can eliminate the need for several versions of the same page. All you need to do is create a separate CSS file for each type of media you want to specifically support. If you've designed the site with all of the content and presentation aspects separated between the HTML/XHTML and the CSS, it works just fine. One HTML/XHTML file for each page, plus one CSS file for each media type you want to use for the entire site. That's better than one HTML/XHTML file for each media type! I suppose it does sound like a lot of work at first. Actually, once you get all of the presentation aspects out of your HTML/XHTML it's a breeze. What do I see when I disable style sheets on my home page? I see generic black text on a white background. How that text is displayed is left up to the CSS file.

The media type is specified in the link to your CSS file. You simply add media="screen,projection,tv" to indicate that this style sheet should be used for regular computer screens, screen projectors, and televisions. You could set these up separately, perhaps indicating page breaks for the projection, etc. For cell phones and PDAs you would use media="handheld". If you use this, Opera won't use its SSR mode, it will use the handheld style sheet instead (looking much better, I might add). Printers don't really need to see your navigation bars, do they? Simply make a media="print" style sheet and use a display: none; rule for your navigation section. If you use the @import function for your CSS, it works this way: @import url("loudvoice.css") aural; ("aural" is the media type for screen readers). Take a look at Media Types (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/media.html) at the W3C for a little more info. As more types of media become "web-enabled" I'm sure we'll see more CSS media types available.

How about a cell phone that will read your email to you out loud? I'd go for that. Of course, it may be embarrasing in an elevator when your phone is shouting "Get Viagra without a prescription! Satisfy her every time!"

thiefware

12-17-2003, 02:45 AM

Take for example a site with wide graphics and multiple columns on pages. That site will get all squished up if the cells are forced to fit inside of 240 pixels. I remember seeing my site on webTV and that was horrible. It would have looked worse on a teeny cell phone screen. Thankfully WebTV didn't take hold and force us to make multiple sites or force us to make all of our tables flexible just so that our sites would fit.

Many sites will still need to be designed for both computer monitors and cell phones because of the way they are designed.

Thanks for the lesson in CSS :)

HillsCap

01-04-2004, 06:59 PM

I found a new way of opening windows...

I was doing it this way (most of the stuff stripped out for brevity):
Market Commentary (http://www.hillscapital.com/calendar/index/index.htm)

It's easier to do it this way:
Market Commentary (http://www.hillscapital.com/calendar/index/index.htm)

Less typing, works just as well, easier, and if you change the 'a href=' URL, the javascript automatically will point to the new URL.

greeneagle

01-28-2004, 04:32 PM

Any time I don’t want a viewer to lose their place on a client’s Site I will open a new window – Particularly when the natural inclination is to close an application, such as a PDF document viewing.

Here are 2 examples:

Select the "printer friendly" version at the bottom of this page:
http://www.vortexventures.com/Products/DustFreeHopperPortable/DustFreeMixingHopperPortable.htm

Or any “Download” button on this “Catalogue and Literature Download” Page:
http://www.vortexventures.com/Literature/Literature.htm

I feel very strongly that it is appropriate to open a new window in some applications!

NEVER SAY NEVER!

Ken

kikkertm

03-28-2004, 07:05 PM

Radical changes of focus in a GUI environment are extremely disorienting to blind users who are navigating by screen reader, and thus can be considered discrimination against the visually impaired.

Opening a link in a new window also breaks the back' button on the browser, preventing back-tracking in navigation.

Surely this is a shortcoming in the screen reader not necesarrily the web design ?

I feel quite strongly about providing good access for as many people as possible but when will the programmme and browser (and screenreader) coders finally start realising that all we do is code in HTML and accepted standards. The way a programme renders it should be addressed for accessibility purposes. It makes much more sense to have a browser that is more flexible (i.e can change font size, font color, strip our javascript and intelligently replace with normal Href etc. etc.) then it is for the web builders to having to create different versions ?

If you are visually impaired but like to read a small print newspaper, you would use magnifying glass instead of suing the newspaper.. Use a tool that works. What is in this day an age that everything is seen as discrimination and has to be sued about ? Let's just all be reasonable. I cannot imagine that many websites ON PURPOSE would prevent people with disablilities to view or use their site.

And if someone needs sueing it is the screen reader or browser coder for not providing access to standard html content in a way suitable for most.

splinter

04-29-2004, 06:46 PM

Links in your forum open new windows.

This brings up another problem that I've been thinking about. The forum on Webnauts.net, as forums on nerly all other sites, is software designed by someone to freely distribute. Let's face it, most of us can't take the time to write our own forum program. The problem is that I haven't seen a forum program that promotes itself as complying with accessibility standards. Maybe that's a project we could get going? I know Perl, but not PHP, but I am willing to learn!

Best Regards,
Narasinha

Why, I am working on such a thing :D It's my little pet project. Currently I am still working on finishing the HTML/CSS and then I will need to optimise it. The final part will be the PHP/MySQL.

It is incredibly easy to alter the look of the site through the CSS (all the design is done by CSS) and it uses a tableless design.

You can check out it's progress here (http://home.graffiti.net/spl1nter:graffiti.net/). And yes, I know there is still a lot of work to be done.

Unfortunately I have exams coming up so I have had to postpone further development for a while. I should start doing more work around the end of June.

Webnauts

05-02-2004, 11:22 AM

Splinter congradulations. Excellent work!
I hope I will be able to buy your software.

Mik

05-25-2004, 07:10 PM

Hello Webnauts and all,

Not to be a "Man for all seasons" but I find myself agreeing with all sides here. I created and maintain a site for a publishing company. http://www.grantbooks.com

The site successfully utilizes a lot of Javascript (which I love) for the navagation, shopping cart, etc... When a glitch does crop up, I figure it out and correct it as soon as I possibly can.

I will be entirley redesigning this web site using CSS thanks to the information posted by Veteran splinter I am completely sold on his reasons for designing a site with CSS. It has accessibility and compatability simply not achived with HTML.

However I completely understand the other side of this equasion. Unless you come up against a certain problem, you will never understand why or how to go about fixing it. For example, I am the webmistress for a publisher of illustrated fantasy, science fiction and horror books. It certainly never occured to me that we had visually impaired customers! These disabled customers would let me know how distressed they were at my design by emailing me scathing letters ripping me a new one! Needless to say that got my attention.

I want to redesign the site so the user can have the control over the font size, text color and background color. Until that happens I need a temporary solution that I'm hoping Webnauts or someone can help me with. I need a quick fix for enlarging the text. I know browsers are equiped with the ability to make text larger or smaller but you'd be surprised how many users don't know that. I have tried various Javascript methods without much success. My page is heavily laden with Javascript so adding another causes unforseen problems.

My next point has to do with web design companies both small and large. Many of us got into web design by accident. I am primarily an artist who started using the computer back in 1991 to do graphic design for the purposes publishing a magazine. This of course led to computer art,video editing, and web design.

I put up my first web page back in 1995 to showcase my fantasy art paintings. At that time accessibility and usability was not the issue that it is today. Artists like myself were free to commit all kinds of coding atrocities that have had to be unlearned in order to progress.

Naturally the time it took to learn proper web design infringed on my time for painting and caused my primary purpose to fall by the wayside.... Not to mention the damage done by having my can glued to this chair for the past 13 years!

My point is that we have all approached web design from various angles. For many years artists have had the visual advantages and programmers have had the technical advantage. We are each trying to learn the others' craft and in doing so mistakes are made and toes get stepped on.

Yes, it is important to expand your knowledge and stay up to date if you are responsible for a business site, but for a personal or experimental site it may be necessary to sacrifice some usability in the name of art. This is by no means an excuse! It is by experimentation that artists and programmers come together to find solutions for eachothers visions. What used to be a vast chasm in web development is now a mere gap. By making the effort to accomodate disabled users and web novices we make ourselves better designers. However this does take time.

Anyway...my train of thought is derailing now and I just want to conclude with this thought: I don't think that any career has ever brought so many different people together and overlapped into personal lives as much as the job of a web designer/developer. For whatever reason that brought us to this point, the desire for the best possible solution is what we have in common.

Mik (Michaela)

Webnauts

05-26-2004, 05:30 AM

I think you might find a solution here: http://www.mcu.org.uk/articles/styleswitcher.php

Some more reading here: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/phpswitch/

Webnauts

08-07-2004, 09:47 PM

Don't open new windows (tutorial revised)

Actually you should not force links to open in a new window or popups (such as with the "target" attribute or with JavaScript).

As you might know, JavaScript is not supported by all browsers and some users disable it. When JavaScript is used, it should not be relied upon.
In such cases you will disable your visitor to access your content.

You should avoid as far as possible implementing JavaScript, to avoid running risks on complications on the end users machines, or while goverment and other employees are required to disable this feature, for security or other reasons. Also there is a number of users who are very concerned about security issues and disable this feature too.

The issue here is not only concerning users disabling JavaScript in their browsers. How many do so? 8%?

What about cell phone users? How about sight impaired users? For the ones who when changing the current window or popping up new windows can be very disoriented, while they cannot see that this has happened. And how much percent are they?

The usability Jakob Nielsen say's about this:

JavaScript in Links.

Links are the Web's basic building blocks, and users' ability to understand them and to use various browser features correctly is key to enhancing their online skills.

Links that don't behave as expected undermine users' understanding of their own system. A link should be a simple hypertext reference that replaces the current page with new content. Users hate unwarranted pop-up windows. When they want the destination to appear in a new page, they can use their browser's "open in new window" command -- assuming, of course, that the link is not a piece of code that interferes with the browser’s standard behavior.

Users deserve to control their own destiny. Computers that behave consistently empower people by letting them use their own tools and wield them accurately.
Source: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html

Another fact is, that if you markup with XHTML Strict, the "target=_blank" is not supported!

If you absolutely must open a link in a new window, explicitly warn the user with a clear indication that the page will open in a different window. Provide a title attribute on the anchor tag with a description indicating that the link opens a new window; for example:

European Year of People with Disabilities 2003 (new window) (http://www.eypd2003.org)

If you do so, keep in mind that targeting a link to open in a new window violates the W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1], and (if you're in the United States or other country with comparable anti-discrimination legislation) is quite possibly illegal under federal civil rights law.

Radical changes of focus in a GUI environment are extremely disorienting to blind users who are navigating by screen reader, and thus can be considered discrimination against the visually impaired.

- Opening a link in a new window also breaks the back' button on the browser, preventing back-tracking in navigation;

- It also bypasses the tabbed navigation in Galeon and Mozilla, irritating users of that feature;

- If your user wants to open the link in a new window, he or she can do so quite easily with most browsers; there is no need to force the issue;

- It's about leaving the user the freedom to navigate in the way that works best for him or her;

- It's not unusual for a designer never to have thought about such issues; that's why we have the WCAG to point out to us things we might otherwise overlook. Or?

After all do you want to build an accessible pop-up window? Then add the code below within the head tags of your HTML document. (Script source: http://www.accessify.com)

<script type="text/javascript">
var newWindow = null;

function closeWin(){
if (newWindow != null){
if(!newWindow.closed)
newWindow.close();
}
}

function popUpWin(url, type, strWidth, strHeight){

closeWin();

if (type == "fullScreen"){

strWidth = screen.availWidth - 10;
strHeight = screen.availHeight - 160;
}

var tools="";
if (type == "standard" || type == "fullScreen") tools = "resizable,toolbar=yes,location=yes,scrollbars=yes, menubar=yes,width="+strWidth+",height="+strHeight+",top=0,left=0";
if (type == "console") tools = "resizable,toolbar=no,location=no,scrollbars=no,wid th="+strWidth+",height="+strHeight+",left=0,top=0";
newWindow = window.open(url, 'newWin', tools);
newWindow.focus();
}
</script>

Then add your link in the body of your document as below:

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (http://www.w3.org/WAI/)

Example see here: http://www.webnauts.net/popup.html - Test it disabling JavaScript to see how it works!

Further reading:

Not opening new windows: http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_16_not_opening_new_windows.html
Use interim solutions: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
Opening a link in a new window: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-validator/2002Apr/0100.html

---
Notice: This article is written by John S. Britsios (http://www.webnauts.net/curriculum.html), founder and owner of the Webnauts Net (http://www.webnauts.net) and may be reproduced in a website, e-zine, CD-ROM, book, magazine, etc. so long as his name is included in full, including a link back to his website.

thiefware

04-19-2006, 03:55 PM

Narasinha

06-04-2006, 08:46 PM

If you do so, keep in mind that targeting a link to open in a new window violates the W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [1], and (if you're in the United States or other country with comparable anti-discrimination legislation) is quite possibly illegal under federal civil rights law.
I ask again, where the heck is that kind of link deemed illegal? People should not be claiming new window links are illegal--they are not illegal. It is at the webmaster's discretion whether or not to use new window links.

Yes, it is at the webmaster's discretion, just as having wheelchair accessible doors at your place of business is at your discretion. The problem arises when someone with special needs has a desire to access your services. Can you meet their needs? U.S. Federal legislation mandates that government web sites meet accessibility requirements.

But this doesn't apply to regular commercial web sites. Or does it? the legal results have been going both ways. Check out the CNet article Blind patrons sue Target for site inaccessibility (http://news.com.com/Blind+patrons+sue+Target+for+site+inaccessibility/2100-1030_3-6038123.html).

As the article states:

This is just the latest in a series of lawsuits filed related to Web accessibility for the blind. Goldstein represented the NFB in a case against America Online that ended in a 2000 settlement that led to better Web service for the blind, he said. And in August 2004, Priceline.com and Ramada.com agreed to make their Web pages easier to navigate for the blind and visually impaired as part of a settlement with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

But soon after, a federal appeals court ruled that Web publishers are not required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in a case filed by an advocacy group for the blind asking Southwest Airlines to redesign its Web site.
So, yes, it has gone both ways in court. But why should accessibility need to be legislated? Isn't it just the right thing to do on several levels? More people are able to efffectively use the site, and it shows the community that you are a morally responsible organization.