Re: XP SP2 and opening windows
From: Matt Hamilton (MattHamilton_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: venkat chellam: "Re: Session state problem"
- Previous message: Davud Brnch: "Re: using Crystal report s"
- In reply to: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Next in thread: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Reply: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:27:06 -0700
I just have a problem with popups being allowed on a client-side onclick
event, but not a server-side click event. It is hypocritical and does not
follow Microsoft's own guidelines for how the popup blocker should work.
That's really my only problem and the problem that users have when the first
popup is blocked.
"Jeremy Davis" wrote:
> Unfortunately, you're ignoring some major aspects of the lowest common
> denominator of Windows/IE user base (and users in general).
> 1) When malicious sites generate unwanted popups, they will blame IE rather
> than thinking about settings. (So IE needs blocking)
> 2)They won't think to change default settings. (And it has to be enabled by
> default)
> And, 3) They click through dialogs without reading. (Using popup dialogs of
> "do you want to enable/disable XXX" is often pointless)
> These are things MS has teams of UI engineers to work on, and they've had to
> design the current settings around them. They're trying to at least save the
> clueless from themselves.
>
> Moreover, I don't know about you but *I* want to be the one in control of
> what a site can and can't do to my browser. And hijacking it to throw new
> windows in my face isn't usually something I like. As a web application
> developer, I have to design my apps with this principle in mind too.
> Beyond that, I must not be understanding your requirements very well,
> because when I think of providing multiple views of data I usually don't
> think of modal windows. It's a real PITA to be unable to scroll around in the
> secondary view, among other complications.
>
> I had meant for this to be more explanatory and less ranty, but it is what
> it is. Oh well.
>
> "Matt Hamilton" wrote:
>
> > My user base is restricted to Windows PCs and Internet Explorer 5.5+. They
> > expect any application to function like all other applications function (i.e.
> > What good would a spell checker do if it opened in place of the document
> > instead of in another window/dialog or frame? What if the Solution Explorer
> > in Visual Studio always opened in place of the currently open document? What
> > if we could not have multiple documents open at the same time at all? What if
> > Excel forced you format cells without a dialog window? And there are probably
> > many more relevant examples... ). The key to our application is being able to
> > see all other grid rows while modifying any number of grid rows (this occurs
> > in about 100 different places) so it makes sense to have a modal dialog which
> > allows the user to see the content of the main browser window while not being
> > able to focus on anything except the modal window. Why should an internet
> > application that is restricted to IE 5.5+ follow different rules than a
> > Visual Basic application? Could I have my internet application verifed by
> > Microsoft as safe and then prompt the user to add it to their trusted sites
> > when they first login to the app?... Actually, can I do that myself?... IE
> > defaults to downloading plugins with a simple warning... Why not say, "The
> > site you are visiting is trying to include itself in your list of trusted
> > sites. This could affect the security of your PC. Do you wish to continue?"
> > Instead of displaying a help message that says do this, then this, then this,
> > then this... Now you can use our application. It is hard enough to market an
> > internet application in my industry without adding an "install" process.
> >
> > I agree that users should learn to adapt and change their preferences
> > themselves on occasion, but the fact is, they should not have to in this
> > case. Microsoft claims that the popup blocker stops popups that are not
> > created by a direct user action. I would call a button click on a button
> > titled "Open Modify Window" a direct user action. The fact that I need to go
> > back to the server to build the url is my business and the user should not
> > have to be told that some buttons work because they open with the client-side
> > onclick and some do not work because they need a trip to the server before
> > the window opens. Either block all popup windows or let us open windows with
> > the server-side equivalent client-side event handlers that are currently
> > allowed to open modal dialogs... Why the hypocrisy?
> >
> > I think that users who visit the shady sites that misuse popups should have
> > to change their preferences to block popups instead of blocking popups for
> > everyone by default. Also, why is it more important to include a popup
> > blocker than integrated virus protection? Windows cannot recognize a
> > virus-infected file a user downloads, yet it will stop an extra window from
> > opening on a webpage that the user chooses to visit.
> >
> > "Joerg Jooss" wrote:
> >
> > > Matt Hamilton wrote:
> > > > I have an application page with a datagrid with a checkbox on each
> > > > row. The user should check the rows they want to modify and then
> > > > click a button. When the button is clicked, I have a Click handler
> > > > that builds a url and then registers a startup script to open a modal
> > > > dialog window. With XP SP2 installed the pop-up blocker stops the
> > > > windows from displaying. Is there any way around this? My users are
> > > > too stupid to turn off the popup blocker or anything else to allow
> > > > the modal to display. I need it to work without the user having to do
> > > > anything.
> > >
> > > Matt, why don't you create a nice help page with lots of screenshots that
> > > shows your users how to fix the problem? They would need to do it only once
> > > if they put your site on the exception list (or whatever it is called in the
> > > English version of IE).
> > >
> > > > I kinda doubt that it's possible since the web interface for these
> > > > newsgroups suffer from the same problem.
> > > >
> > > > So, are we going to allow developers to create internet applications,
> > > > or is Microsoft basically killing internet applications by not
> > > > allowing you to make a webpage into an application?
> > >
> > > You're disregarding the first law of web applications: The broader your user
> > > base is, the more restricted is your choice of technologies. If your
> > > application breaks with XP SP2 while your users are free to use whatever
> > > (Windows) OS version they like, it's your problem.
> > >
> > > I also don't feel that "modal windows" and "web applications" really fit
> > > together. Why not display the dialog in the same browser window?
> > >
> > > > The popup blocker
> > > > should be turned off by default
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree, but YMMV.
> > >
> > > > and there should be a way to open
> > > > windows from server-side event handlers that are called when a button
> > > > is clicked.
> > >
> > > That's impossible -- server-side code runs on the server. How is that
> > > supposed to open anything on the client machine?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > --
> > > Joerg Jooss
> > > joerg.jooss@gmx.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
- Next message: venkat chellam: "Re: Session state problem"
- Previous message: Davud Brnch: "Re: using Crystal report s"
- In reply to: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Next in thread: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Reply: Jeremy Davis: "Re: XP SP2 and opening windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
