Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Cool future browser feature....

Reply
Thread Tools

Cool future browser feature....

 
 
Richard Cornford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
>> You have got your logic the wrong way around: Can 'confirm' widow
>> opening = not a pop-up blocker. But; NOT not a pop-up blocker - does
>> not equal - a pop-up blocker.

>
> Oh, absolutely true. My only thought here was to establish the
> facility to open another window, not to confirm the presence of a
> popup blocker specifically. Why would the distinction make any
> difference?


The distinction is mostly a matter of understanding the meaning of the
results of a test. Or making the test that answers the question you want
answered.

The question is usually (in my experience) formulated as "is the user
operating a pop-up blocker", and there is no test that will answer that
question. There are tests that may be able to confirm the viability of
opening pop-ups. They are a little more involved than you described, and
the timeout issue (how long you wait for the confirmation) is
significant if you want an accurate result and a responsive UI.

Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
solitaire
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2005
Travis Newbury wrote:
> You know what would be a great browser feature? If the browser could
> tell the web page if thee is a popup blocker running.
>
> The page opens, tests for the existance of the pop up blocker, and
> takes the appropriate action with the links.
>
> Of course the "anti-popup for any reason" crowd won't think this would
> be a cool feature...
>


Why would that be cool? Anyone who hosts popups on their sites is a waste of
bandwidth anyway.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Cornford quothed

> The question is usually (in my experience) formulated as "is the user
> operating a pop-up blocker", and there is no test that will answer that
> question. There are tests that may be able to confirm the viability of
> opening pop-ups. They are a little more involved than you described, and
> the timeout issue (how long you wait for the confirmation) is
> significant if you want an accurate result and a responsive UI.


Well, it's easy enough to determine if the user has javascript activated
and a window won't open. Perhaps that's not *absolute* proof of a
popup-blocker, but, hey, I'll bet it's accurate 99+% of the time. And
it's surely a valid programming technique.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Cornford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Cornford quothed

<snip>
>> ... . They are a little more involved than you described,
>> and the timeout issue (how long you wait for the
>> confirmation) is significant if you want an accurate
>> result and a responsive UI.

>
> Well, it's easy enough to determine if the user has
> javascript activated and a window won't open.


You may say that but I have seen dozens of proposed examples of pop-up
blocker detectors (all actually not-pop-up bocker detectors with the
false assumption applied to the result) but none have ever taken account
of the full range of behaviour exhibited by pop-up blockers. And so all
of those examples would potentially error-out, either preventing the
completion of the test or producing false positive, or negative,
results.

Which is not to say that such a script could not be written to be
reliable, just that the individuals who are interested in creating such
scripts either don't research the issues sufficiently to see how they
should be implementing their test, or that they don't know how to
program their testes in a robust way (or a combination of the two).

One of the obvious problems with the creation of a good
not-pop-up-blocker detector is that the more experienced script authors
have figured out how they can get the pop-up effects and benefits
without trying to open new browser windows and so have no further
interest in detecting pop-up blockers. That leaves only relative novices
writing the detection scripts, and that is evident in the results.

> Perhaps that's not *absolute* proof of a popup-blocker,
> but, hey, I'll bet it's accurate 99+% of
> the time.


It still depends on what it is you are trying to do. If it is a question
of verifying the viability of using pop-ups in a UI then the 'confirm
when loaded' strategy is 100% accurate. If you are planning to tell the
user that they must disable their pop-up blocker then the percentage who
never were running a pop-up blocker are going to think you a fool when
you ask them to turn it off. Some people don't mind their users thinking
them a fool, other would rather avoid giving that impression. (It might
be argues that the first group actually are fools, so fair enough)

It is probably a combination of experiences and personality but when I
create a test I don't want to get 99% of the answer.

> And it's surely a valid programming technique.


That probably depends a lot on what you are programming, though I cannot
think of many tasks where a 1% failure rate would get past QA. And there
is no point writing code that will be rejected and need to be re-done
when you can be certain that is going to happen before writing it.

Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005
solitaire wrote:
> Why would that be cool? Anyone who hosts popups on their sites is a waste of
> bandwidth anyway.


You have a very limited view of what the web can be used for.

--
-=tn=-

 
Reply With Quote
 
Noozer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2005

"Travis Newbury" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> solitaire wrote:
> > Why would that be cool? Anyone who hosts popups on their sites is a

waste of
> > bandwidth anyway.

>
> You have a very limited view of what the web can be used for.


You have ONE browser window. If you can't present your ideas within that
window then I'm not interested.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2005
Noozer wrote:
> > You have a very limited view of what the web can be used for.

> You have ONE browser window. If you can't present your ideas within that
> window then I'm not interested.


Fine, it's your browser, do with it what you want.

--
-=tn=-

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Richard Cornford quothed

> > Well, it's easy enough to determine if the user has
> > javascript activated and a window won't open.

>
> You may say that but I have seen dozens of proposed examples of pop-up
> blocker detectors (all actually not-pop-up bocker detectors with the
> false assumption applied to the result) but none have ever taken account
> of the full range of behaviour exhibited by pop-up blockers. And so all
> of those examples would potentially error-out, either preventing the
> completion of the test or producing false positive, or negative,
> results.


Well, in order to continue and enhance this discussion profitably, I
have to do some tests of my own and to be honest with you I just don't
care (i.e. I'm too lazy <yawn>.)

> It still depends on what it is you are trying to do. If it is a question
> of verifying the viability of using pop-ups in a UI then the 'confirm
> when loaded' strategy is 100% accurate. If you are planning to tell the
> user that they must disable their pop-up blocker then the percentage who
> never were running a pop-up blocker are going to think you a fool when
> you ask them to turn it off.


I still say how can you have javascript active yet be unable to open a
window except the obvious? But...<yawn>.

> Some people don't mind their users thinking
> them a fool, other would rather avoid giving that impression.


It never bothered me.

> > And it's surely a valid programming technique.

>
> That probably depends a lot on what you are programming, though I cannot
> think of many tasks where a 1% failure rate would get past QA. And there
> is no point writing code that will be rejected and need to be re-done
> when you can be certain that is going to happen before writing it.


I'll admit there might be bugs in the absolute deduction of my position,
but what program is 100% bug-free? None of them are, that's what.
Anyway, I wouldn't bet my soul on it working perfectly.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Noozer quothed

> You have ONE browser window. If you can't present your ideas within that
> window then I'm not interested.


Ah, but what if one has a *very large*, uh, appurtenance to present??

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noozer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-05-2005

"Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
> With neither quill nor qualm, Noozer quothed
>
> > You have ONE browser window. If you can't present your ideas within that
> > window then I'm not interested.

>
> Ah, but what if one has a *very large*, uh, appurtenance to present??


How can a popup window be any larger than my main browser window when
maximized?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[ANN] cool.io 1.0.0: a cool event framework for Ruby (formerly knownas Rev) Tony Arcieri Ruby 0 12-14-2010 04:40 PM
[ANN] cool.io 0.9.0: a cool event framework for Ruby (formerly knownas Rev) based on libev Tony Arcieri Ruby 14 12-09-2010 05:23 AM
Micro-pump is cool idea for future computer chips studyandtelecom@yahoo.com VHDL 0 07-14-2006 01:32 PM
Cool computer, no I really mean cool Collector»NZ NZ Computing 13 04-24-2005 02:45 AM
Cool Applet Cool Applet http://24.60.235.213/Grid/ Alisher Fatykhov Java 1 08-06-2003 04:32 AM



Advertisments