Re: no target="_blank"
- From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 15:15:00 +0100
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Jaxtraw wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Many a time I've been told of naive users who couldn't understand
why their Back button no longer worked, so the only way out that
they knew was to exit the whole browser and start again. They had
no idea that the original browser window was hidden underneath the
new one that the misguided author had forced on them.
...so they close the window, and find the original one beneath.
I meant just what I said - and not what you wanted me to have said.
"Target" is a valid design choice
There are lots of things which authors deem to be a "valid design
choice" - without apparently caring what the consequences could be for
and it's ludicrous that the w3C would just decide to remove this
If you understood the point of "strict", you would not waste your time
that has been around for donkey's years.
And still -is- doing almost as much harm as it's ever done.
Especially for the naive users at whom it's targetted. (We more-
experienced users have learned how to tame it in some modern browsers,
thus regaining some of the control that we're supposed to get over
our browsing situation, according to the web's original aims.)
I understand that many people feel "the user is king" but that isn't
I'm sure they're duly humbled in your presence. :-(
Now, many people will say "I find that irritating. I don't want
that. I am the USER and my desires are paramount". Well, tough.
I'm glad you made that clear! Let's hope other authors can learn from
I'd prefer TV without adverts too, but I recognise that if my wishes
as a TV user are carried out, the TV company won't make any money,
go bankrupt, and then I won't get the primary thing I want (free TV
Hang on, what *is* this? You might have decided that the web is just
another form of commercial TV, but some of us use it for very
With this, the w3c seems to have taken a specific philosophical
position, imposing on the web how they think it should be.
On the contrary: they codify the interworking specifications
for different mechanisms, which include a range of very different
technologies. It's *you* who is trying to "impose" your personal
view of what the web ought to be (commercial TV, apparently).
- Re: no target="_blank"
- From: Jaxtraw
- Re: no target="_blank"
- Prev by Date: Re: Web-safe typefaces
- Next by Date: Re: no target="_blank"
- Previous by thread: Re: no target="_blank"
- Next by thread: Re: no target="_blank"