SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Html errors

  1. #1
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Html errors

    I am validating my new site. I get some errors but not sure how to correct them.



    Line 20, Column 80: Bad value text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 for attribute content on element meta: iso-8859-1 is not a preferred encoding name. The preferred label for this encoding is windows-1252.
    <head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />

    Line 279, Column 111: End tag br.

    lorum ibusm</br> lorum ibusmlorum ibusm</h5>

    Line 226, Column 50: No space between attributes.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">


    Error Line 226, Column 56: Quote " in attribute name. Probable cause: Matching quote missing somewhere earlier.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">


    Error Line 226, Column 57: Quote " in attribute name. Probable cause: Matching quote missing somewhere earlier.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">


    Warning Line 226, Column 58: Attribute _blank"" is not serializable as XML 1.0.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">


    Error Line 226, Column 58: Bad value http://www.google.com target= for attribute href on element a: Whitespace in host component. Use %20 in place of spaces.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">

    Syntax of IRI reference:
    Any URL. For example: /hello, #canvas, or http://example.org/. Characters should be represented in NFC and spaces should be escaped as %20.

    Error Line 226, Column 58: Attribute _blank"" not allowed on element a at this point.

    <a href="http://www.google.com target="_blank"">

    Attributes for element a:
    Global attributes
    href
    target
    download
    rel
    hreflang
    type

  2. #2
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,301
    Mentioned
    460 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    You need an extra quote here:

    Code:
    <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank">
    Also, target="" is deprecated and should ideally be avoided. It depends on what doctype you are using whether you will get a warning for it or not, though.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I do not understand why i get _blank""> in my html there is no double quote.

    What is wrong with<br/>

    Is this okay to use ?, as i get an error : meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />

  4. #4
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    okay, what could i use instead of target="_blank" ? What is wrong with my <br> tag ?

  5. #5
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    One more question. Is it ok to upload a site to another domain for testing out errors- or could it harm SEO in someway ?

  6. #6
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,816
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    What is wrong with my <br> tag ?
    exactly! you have </br>

    also I would check the source code that's generating your HTML, or maybe the data you are using. My theory is, it generates only an HREF. Target is a different attribute. So, if I am correct whats happening is you are sending this string : 'http://www.google.com target="_blank"' which is being placed in 'href="$yourString"' ... and thus 'href="http://www.google.com target="_blank""'

    perhaps the string you send should look like : 'href="http://www.google.com target="_blank' but you wuld have to check both your data and your generating source

  7. #7
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    exactly! you have </br>

    also I would check the source code that's generating your HTML, or maybe the data you are using. My theory is, it generates only an HREF. Target is a different attribute. So, if I am correct whats happening is you are sending this string : 'http://www.google.com target="_blank"' which is being placed in 'href="$yourString"' ... and thus 'href="http://www.google.com target="_blank""'

    perhaps the string you send should look like : 'href="http://www.google.com target="_blank' but you wuld have to check both your data and your generating source
    Sorry, but do sure what you mean by "data and your generating source"

  8. #8
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    okay, what could i use instead of target="_blank" ??
    Nothing. When you use a target attribute you reduce the options available to your visitors. If they want to open a link in a new tab or window then they will right click on the link and select the appropriate option for where they want to open the link. If you use that attribute then you reduce their choices on where to open it from three to two unless they know how to override your obsolete code in their browser.

    You should be trying to make things easier for people visiting your site - not harder. When you make things harder for your visitors by reducing their choices they will leave your site and go somewhere that lets them choose to do things the way they want.

    Trying to dictate where links open was something done back in the 20th century along with placing hit counters on the page and various other things that make a site today appear very ameteurish or extremely dated.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  9. #9
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Nothing. When you use a target attribute you reduce the options available to your visitors. If they want to open a link in a new tab or window then they will right click on the link and select the appropriate option for where they want to open the link. If you use that attribute then you reduce their choices on where to open it from three to two unless they know how to override your obsolete code in their browser.

    You should be trying to make things easier for people visiting your site - not harder. When you make things harder for your visitors by reducing their choices they will leave your site and go somewhere that lets them choose to do things the way they want.

    Trying to dictate where links open was something done back in the 20th century along with placing hit counters on the page and various other things that make a site today appear very ameteurish or extremely dated.
    Thanks for your reply. I will not use target then. The reason why i want to use it, is i am afraid they will never find back to my page, If they click on 10 pages on the other site. They wil have to hit back a couple of times.

  10. #10
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,301
    Mentioned
    460 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    The reason why i want to use it, is i am afraid they will never find back to my page, If they click on 10 pages on the other site. They wil have to hit back a couple of times.
    The question then would be, do you really need those external links? Why are you sending them to other sites?

  11. #11
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yes, really do did to link to that page :/

    <head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" /> what wrong here ?

  12. #12
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,301
    Mentioned
    460 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    yes, really do did to link to that page :/
    Because "_blanl" etc. are deprecated now, if you really want to have it, you could use JS instead.

    <head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" /> what wrong here ?
    I don't see a problem with it. It's not an error. Personally, I prefer charset=utf-8

  13. #13
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It'd probably help if I could see the code itself, for those other errors though it seems like there might be a mismatch occurring.

    However, the ISO-8859-1 message might be just a "warning" in the Validator; ISO-8859-1 and windows-1252 are very similar encodings and the browser might assume the latter hence the error. Though you'd probably be better with declaring UTF-8. Also you could have forced the Validator to use: ISO-8859-1 if you really wanted though it's not usually done.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Robert, could you write what you are using with utf-8, btw it is a danish site does that mean anything ?

    Is there a way to post link to my site, without google can see it ? would really like to show the site, and the problems i have. But i dont want it to show up when somebody google the site.

  15. #15
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Probably the best solution is to save the file as UTF-8 itself, and use UTF-8 as the charset value since the document will be written using the Danish alphabet and some letters may have diacritic signs.

    Perhaps the web editor you were using wasn't using the same encoding. UTF-8 can be used for all languages and is the recommended charset on the Internet.

    I use the encoding declaration of the XML declaration on the first line of the page: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> though you may not want to.

    I'd suspect you'd be better off using: <meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> since you be likely to be serving the file as 'text/html'.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    825
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    my understanding is for HTML5 you can only use charset=utf-8, and should not use charset=ISO-8859-1

    I read this just a few days ago, I don't remember where....

  17. #17
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,892
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maya90 View Post
    my understanding is for HTML5 you can only use charset=utf-8, and should not use charset=ISO-8859-1
    It really depends what character set your editor is using, but that is no different to earlier versions of HTML and isn't specific to v5. If you are confident that your editor is saving in UTF-8 then it's fine to use that. But if you're not sure, it's better to play it safe and use ISO-8859-1 or similar, and then you won't run the risk of characters being wrongly encoded.

    The W3C documentation giving examples of how to specify the charset says:
    In each of the examples below, unless otherwise indicated, substitute the appropriate charset name for where you see "UTF-8".
    which I would take as good evidence that they don't require you to use UTF-8.

  18. #18
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Nothing. When you use a target attribute you reduce the options available to your visitors. If they want to open a link in a new tab or window then they will right click on the link and select the appropriate option for where they want to open the link. If you use that attribute then you reduce their choices on where to open it from three to two unless they know how to override your obsolete code in their browser.

    You should be trying to make things easier for people visiting your site - not harder. When you make things harder for your visitors by reducing their choices they will leave your site and go somewhere that lets them choose to do things the
    way they want.

    Trying to dictate where links open was something done back in the 20th century along with placing hit counters on the page and various other things that make a site today appear very ameteurish or extremely dated.

    What about on Tablets and other mobile devices ? I dont get, why in some cases it is not okay to use target_blank. Or is there some cases it is ok ? What about giving the user an option alert box ?

  19. #19
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    I dont get, why in some cases it is not okay to use target_blank. Or is there some cases it is ok ? What about giving the user an option alert box ?
    The target attribute was deleted from HTML in 1997 when it was decided that it is better to give your visitors a choice of where they want links to open. Even before then you could right click on a link to choose whether to open it in the same window or a new window. Now some browsers give the choice of same tab, new window in front, new window in the background, new tab in front, or new tab but keep the current one open. Specifying a target has the effect of removing one of those choices for those of your visitors who don't know how to disable the target attribute completely in their browser.

    An alert box is a tool for debugging JavaScript. In most browsers it displays a checkbox allowing all subsequent alerts to be turned off, in others it displays a checkbox to allow JavaScript to be completely turned off for the specific page. It should never be used on a live web page.

    There are NO cases where using target are okay - if there were then the attribute wouldn't have been deleted from HTML back in 1997. You should ALWAYS give your visitors the option of where to open pages and you do that by NOT specifying a target.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  20. #20
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    The target attribute was deleted from HTML in 1997 when it was decided that it is better to give your visitors a choice of where they want links to open. Even before then you could right click on a link to choose whether to open it in the same window or a new window. Now some browsers give the choice of same tab, new window in front, new window in the background, new tab in front, or new tab but keep the current one open. Specifying a target has the effect of removing one of those choices for those of your visitors who don't know how to disable the target attribute completely in their browser.

    An alert box is a tool for debugging JavaScript. In most browsers it displays a checkbox allowing all subsequent alerts to be turned off, in others it displays a checkbox to allow JavaScript to be completely turned off for the specific page. It should never be used on a live web page.

    There are NO cases where using target are okay - if there were then the attribute wouldn't have been deleted from HTML back in 1997. You should ALWAYS give your visitors the option of where to open pages and you do that by NOT specifying a target.
    Deleted ? Is is still here in HTML5 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/browsers....ame-or-keyword and http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-html5-2...#the-a-element

    I still dont really understand why it is so bad. But it is valid html right ? It is just "your" opinion that it is not userfriendly, right ?

  21. #21
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,862
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    I still dont really understand why it is so bad. But it is valid html right ? It is just "your" opinion that it is not userfriendly, right ?
    HTML 4 deleted it in 1997 because it restricts your visitor's choices of where they can open pages. Browsers since then still support it because it would break the web pages still written in HTML 3.2 if it were to have been removed completely at that point.

    HTML 5 has defined that browsers should continue to support all the HTML 2 and HTML 3.2 tags that people were supposed to stop using when HTML 4 was released in 1997 because even now most web pages are written using HTML 3.2. Just because HTML 5 says that browsers should still accept long dead tags doesn't mean that you should be using them in new web pages (for example HTML 5 now recognises the embed tag which was never a part of the standard before and which was only ever needed by the now long dead Netscape 4 browser - but people still use the tag even though the only browser that needed it is long gone and so HTML 5 says that current browsers should not break for pages written for that long dead browser instead of using the modern equivalent).

    It is not just my opinion that removing one of your visitor's choices is not user friendly - removing choices that your visitor may want to make is ALWAYS less friendly than allowing them the extra choices.

    Anyway it makes no difference to me whether people use the long dead target attribute or not because I told my browser long ago to completely ignore it and to allow me all of the choices that I would have it it were not there. Even if you use it in your page my browser will ignore it and treat your page the same as if you didn't use it. It is only those people who don't know how to configure their browser that way that you will be annoying by limiting their choices.

    The difference between HTML 4 and HTML 5 is that HTML 4 identified tags and attributes that people should remove from their pages with the view that they not be supported at all in future browsers whereas HTML 5 has recognised that most people are still writing web pages for long dead browsers using HTML 3.2 and proprietary tags and so modern browsers still need to support all that stupidity or the 95% of th web that has yet to be updated to use HTML 4 will break.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  22. #22
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,892
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    It is just "your" opinion that it is not userfriendly, right ?
    It is the agreed wisdom if most if not all usability and accessibility experts that forcing a new window for a link is pretty much always a bad idea. It takes control away from the user for no good reason, which can be confusing, irritating and can even stop a user from achieving what they want to do if it messes up their process too much, which can very easily happen.

    If you give a regular link, anyone can choose to open it in the current context, in a new window or a new tab if they want to. If you force target="_blank" on them, the vast majority of people no longer have a choice. Why do you need to force that on them. Can you give one good reason for forcing everyone to open a link in a new window (which may or may not give a new tab, depending on their preferences)? Because I don't think I have yet seen one.

  23. #23
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    It is the agreed wisdom if most if not all usability and accessibility experts that forcing a new window for a link is pretty much always a bad idea. It takes control away from the user for no good reason, which can be confusing, irritating and can even stop a user from achieving what they want to do if it messes up their process too much, which can very easily happen.

    If you give a regular link, anyone can choose to open it in the current context, in a new window or a new tab if they want to. If you force target="_blank" on them, the vast majority of people no longer have a choice. Why do you need to force that on them. Can you give one good reason for forcing everyone to open a link in a new window (which may or may not give a new tab, depending on their preferences)? Because I don't think I have yet seen one.
    I think target_blank is great in some situations- maybe because i have not been using "ctrl + click". I just cant see the problem. There is also a reason why so many still uses it, right ? Lets say i have a site where i present my work. I have alot of images with web screenshot that links to these sites. The user do not know they are leaving the site when they hit that image ("ctrl + click" on the image). Using target_blank is much better here in my opinion, the user can click around on this site as much as they want - an just close the window, to get back an see the other web screenshot.
    How could the user know that they are leaving the site, and therefore should ctrl+click ?

    Do you have a link with some info to what you are saying ?

  24. #24
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall
    There are NO cases where using target are okay
    I disagree.

    User testing at one of my old jobs showed that not using the target attribute on links to PDFs was BAD usability.

    Every single user we tested on was a Windows user, and their regular browser was IE. They expected a link to a downloadable file to be separate from the web pages, every single time. When the users went to close the PDF, they closed the browser, which was never ever what they intended: they intended to close a separate window holding a PDF. When the 10th person accidentally closed their browser and looked all surprised, we had to fix the problem.

    I had not anticipated this, partially because as Linux users, everyone in the dev room didn't have browsers opening PDFs. They were opened automatically by PDF-reading programs, leaving the browser untouched. Since 90+ % of our users for our sites used Windows, target was a better option.

    We briefly considered using a steaming pile of JS to do this, but thought it was bloat and little more than a cheat around the validator, who is only there to advise us on mistakes anyways. Linux users could override the link if they wanted, and some browsers would only offer a download and in those cases, opened an empty new tab, which was much less annoying than closing the whole browser would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting
    There is also a reason why so many still uses it, right ?
    There are 2 main reasons so many sites use it:

    1. they were told by slimy SEO guys that it was somehow "better for the googles"; either all users are so incredibly stupid that they will never ever find that site they loved to death because they clicked forward a few times, or something similar. Extensive user testing by the likes of Nielsen Group show the Back button is one of the most-used parts of the interface. People know how to scroll down, and they know how to go back a page, and they've known how to do both for many years now. This is a Good Thing.

    2. Long ago browsers did not have tabs. Like, IE6 doesn't have tabs. The only options users had back in the day was indeed a new window if they wanted to keep the original window open somewhere. Web developers got in the habit of using target for this reason. Consequently, lots of users were trained in those early days of the web to expect new windows. If you look, many web pages, even if they are newly-built, still have old code, because devs copy stuff. I still occasionally run across fairly new sites who, in Javascript, check if the browser is IE5 or Netscape Navigator 7. I only saw this nasty old code begin to drop when devs realised jQuery could do all their coding for them, so they'd stopped copying old code.

    Due to #2, where many users were trained to expect a new window, usability studies have varied somewhat: a new window is usually most confusing when it is large enough to entirely cover the old window. Users then believed they had simply clicked a normal link, and could not hit the back button to go back. This is called "breaking the Back button" and it's one of those no-nos.

    When it's obvious that there's another window, or when your target users are fully trained to always expect a new window in a particular circumstance (like our situation above with PDFs), then forcing a new window is less bad. Also in most modern browsers (but I don't think IE still), many now come with a default checked in the browser configs to open "new windows" in a new tab instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting
    How could the user know that they are leaving the site, and therefore should ctrl+click ?
    How do most people know they are leaving a site?

    Years ago, when people were actually still discussing target attributes and new windows (it's one of those old topics where, if you want to find articles about it at places like A List Apart, you have to find their archives from like 2006 or something), there were suggestions for better usability on how to let users know where a link would take them. Wikipedia is probably a good example of the icon idea. In-site Wikipedia links look like links. Outbound Wikipedia links have a little icon next to them, warning you that they take you to another domain. I click these links with no problem: if I want to go back to the Wikipedia article, I hit the Back button.

    Another brilliant idea is, state at the top of the image gallery that the images link to other sites. This idea is so brilliant that most people haven't caught on, because I rarely see it... though that may have to do with the fact that, on the Internet, everyone is a man, and doesn't read directions. If you are going to put target attrs on that page, then you would possibly be saving some user frustration by warning them at the top: "Clicking on the images below will open a new window or tab." It still removed choice from them, but at least it doesn't sneak up on them and bite. I'm kind of a big fan of a simple statement here and there explaining what will happen next, or what people should expect. Not novels-worth, but just a sentence.

    Back in the day, long long ago, you could type "target blank evil" into your search engine of choice and find several pages worth of diatribe against new windows. But since most of the world has already moved on the tabs, there's a whole generation who only know new windows as Javascript popups. The anti-target posts have dwindled as fewer people use them in the first place.

  25. #25
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,892
    Mentioned
    123 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ingenting View Post
    I think target_blank is great in some situations- maybe because i have not been using "ctrl + click". I just cant see the problem. There is also a reason why so many still uses it, right ? Lets say i have a site where i present my work. I have alot of images with web screenshot that links to these sites. The user do not know they are leaving the site when they hit that image ("ctrl + click" on the image). Using target_blank is much better here in my opinion, the user can click around on this site as much as they want - an just close the window, to get back an see the other web screenshot.
    How could the user know that they are leaving the site, and therefore should ctrl+click ?
    If you don't use a target attribute, I can choose where I open the link, depending on what I want to do. If you use target="_blank" then what I (ie, your potential customer) want doesn't get a look in, and I have to accept what you've decided I should have*, whether or not that fits with what I want to do. Is that the way you treat customers elsewhere?

    The only reason we're having this discussion at all is because too many developers in the path have misused target="_blank", and people have become so accustomed to encountering it that they have learned to accept it. But just because bad practice is common doesn't make it right. If webbists stopped using target="_blank", people would very quickly get the hang of choosing whether they wanted to open a link in a new tab/window or not, and if most sites did that then soon it wouldn't occur to you to expect a link to open in a new window automatically. And if you get it wrong or forget (or if you assume someone will be using target="_blank" when they're not) it's very easy to go back and open the link differently if that's what you want to do.

    If I am on your site and I click a link that takes me away, I can hit the back button to go back to your site if I want to. Don't think people aren't perfectly capable of that, because they are. Forcing them to keep your site open in the background and giving them no choice in the matter, because you want them to come back, is supremely arrogant and downright unhelpful.

    * OK, technically that's not true, because I'm in the Enlightened One Percent™ that uses Opera, and so can override target="_blank". But obviously most people aren't in that fortunate position.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •