Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
window.
So what's the best way of doing this?
Nothing online yet but may have later.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:17 -0700, richard writ:
> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
> window.
>
> So what's the best way of doing this?
> Nothing online yet but may have later.
If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer tabs,
not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in preference.
If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use that
site.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:17 -0700, richard wrote:
> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
> window.
>
> So what's the best way of doing this?
> Nothing online yet but may have later.
Sorry, but it's _my_ browser -- not yours.
richard wrote:
> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window. Using the
> "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of which value
> I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new window.
>
> So what's the best way of doing this?
http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=osl
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:34:22 +0000, freemont
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:17 -0700, richard writ:
>
>> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
>> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
>> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
>> window.
>>
>> So what's the best way of doing this?
>> Nothing online yet but may have later.
>
>If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer tabs,
>not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in preference.
>
>If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use that
>site.
Just asking. I can live with it opening in a tab which is basically a
new window.
On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:17 -0700, richard writ:
>
>> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
>> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
>> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
>> window.
>>
>> So what's the best way of doing this?
>> Nothing online yet but may have later.
>
> If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer
> tabs, not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in preference.
I hate tabs. Tabs suck. The only good tab is a dead tab. Whoever
invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
> If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use that
> site.
We agree here.
> "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
If you compare Earth to any other inhabited planet, it's no contest...
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
En Garde!
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:31:36 -0700, richard writ:
> I can live with it opening in a tab which is basically a new
> window.
Well not really, no. It's a new tab in the same window, as I'm sure you
know. :-) I currently have nine tabs open in Opera. If a link forced
another Opera window to pop open, that would irritate the heck out of me.
What the hell do I need another window for?
Anyway, the answer to your original question is no, there's no way to
force a new window AFAIK. Browser preferences determine that behavior.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On 20/04/08 17:34, freemont wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 09:27:17 -0700, richard writ:
>
>> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
>> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
>> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
>> window.
>>
>> So what's the best way of doing this?
>> Nothing online yet but may have later.
>
> If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer tabs,
> not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in preference.
>
> If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use that
> site.
>
Is there a problem with new windows?
Ed
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:01:48 +0100, Ed writ:
>> If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use that
>> site.
>>
> Is there a problem with new windows?
Only when I've instructed my browser not to open any. ;-)
Besides, everybody knows that people who like new windows are communists.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
Ed wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>> richard writ:
>>> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window. Using the
>>> "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of which
>>> value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
>>> window.
>>>
>>> So what's the best way of doing this? Nothing online yet but may
>>> have later.
>>
>> If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer
>> tabs, not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in
>> preference.
>>
>> If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use
>> that site.
>>
> Is there a problem with new windows?
The problem is mostly for n00bs (and for people who surf with maximized
browser windows). The new window completely covers the existing window,
but its Back Button is .. um .. disabled? No, there is nothing to go
back *to* in this window.
So the n00b just clicks their Google button and goes to find something
else to read, and doesn't come back to site that opened the window.
Later on, when they are ready to call it a day, they find the old
window... but meanwhile they bought their widget from someone else.
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
In article
richard
> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window.
In who's browser? If it is your own you are asking about, there is sure
to be a setting in your options or preferences for the browser. For
example in my FF I have an option to "open new pages in the "current
window", "a new tab" or "a current tab".
As an author, your choices are between simply marking the link in a
special way or not marking it. This marking is associated with the
historical practice of new windows springing into life when marked as
target="_blank". But these days, the choices for browsers are so great
that author can only be reasonably sure that most people will have the
link *not* open in the current window.
> Using the "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of
> which value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
> window.
>
> So what's the best way of doing this?
> Nothing online yet but may have later.
--
dorayme
On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
>
>> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
>
> That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
>
> En Garde!
Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
tab...? Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is
where the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:29:09 +0000, Neredbojias writ:
> On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
>>
>>> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
>>
>> That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
>>
>> En Garde!
>
> Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
> tab...?
No, it's greyed out, just like on a new window. But...
> Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is where
> the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
When I open a link in a new tab (here by clicking the mouse wheel), and
I'm done with that new tab, I simply close the tab, which brings me back
to the original tab. Unlike using the back button, I don't have to wait
for the original page to reload, because it never went anywhere, and who
knows, maybe I want to keep the new page/site open. Maybe I'm shopping,
and one tab has a list of goods, and three other tabs have different item
details.
I taught my wife how to use tabs with her Yahoo mail. Want to read an
email, click it with the mouse wheel. It opens in a new tab. Done with the
email, close the tab and there's the original list of emails just like she
left it. No waiting. No confusion of multiple Firefox windows showing in
her taskbar. Tabs rule. Back buttons are soooo 20th century. ;-)
However I understand that some folks just flat out don't like'm. To each
his/her own, but I think they're missing out.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:23:47 -0400, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>Ed wrote:
>
>> freemont wrote:
>>> richard writ:
>>>> Need a way to open a link in an entirely new window. Using the
>>>> "target" attribute only creates a new tab. Regardless of which
>>>> value I try. I can live with it but I'd prefer the entire new
>>>> window.
>>>>
>>>> So what's the best way of doing this? Nothing online yet but may
>>>> have later.
>>>
>>> If there were a way to do this, it would piss me off quick. I prefer
>>> tabs, not windows, so I've set my browsers to use tabs in
>>> preference.
>>>
>>> If a site were able to force new windows to open, I would not use
>>> that site.
>>>
>> Is there a problem with new windows?
>
>The problem is mostly for n00bs (and for people who surf with maximized
>browser windows). The new window completely covers the existing window,
>but its Back Button is .. um .. disabled? No, there is nothing to go
>back *to* in this window.
>
>So the n00b just clicks their Google button and goes to find something
>else to read, and doesn't come back to site that opened the window.
>Later on, when they are ready to call it a day, they find the old
>window... but meanwhile they bought their widget from someone else.
OTOH, noob goes to a site with his browser set to block popups, and
can't figure out why he doesn't get certain expected things to show up
like a new page. While many writers persist on javascript to create a
new window just to give some short answer to a question when he could
have done that in the same window. While some sites insist on JS popup
windows to get your information from you. Yet, some insist on "pop
unders" so that you don't see them until you do close out your main
windows.
Thankfully, with grouped items in the tray, noob might be smart enough
to see that there are more browsers instances open than he had known
about and just might close them out by pure dumb luck.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:29:09 +0000 (UTC), Neredbojias
>On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
>>
>>> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
>>
>> That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
>>
>> En Garde!
>
>Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>tab...? Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is
>where the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
A new tab just replaces a new window. The back button is active within
that tab only. It does not jump between tabs.
I've never seen buttons on the bottom.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:10:17 +0000, freemont
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:29:09 +0000, Neredbojias writ:
>
>> On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
>>>
>>>> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
>>>
>>> That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
>>>
>>> En Garde!
>>
>> Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>> tab...?
>
>No, it's greyed out, just like on a new window. But...
>
>> Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is where
>> the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
>
>When I open a link in a new tab (here by clicking the mouse wheel), and
>I'm done with that new tab, I simply close the tab, which brings me back
>to the original tab. Unlike using the back button, I don't have to wait
>for the original page to reload, because it never went anywhere, and who
>knows, maybe I want to keep the new page/site open. Maybe I'm shopping,
>and one tab has a list of goods, and three other tabs have different item
>details.
>
>I taught my wife how to use tabs with her Yahoo mail. Want to read an
>email, click it with the mouse wheel. It opens in a new tab. Done with the
>email, close the tab and there's the original list of emails just like she
>left it. No waiting. No confusion of multiple Firefox windows showing in
>her taskbar. Tabs rule. Back buttons are soooo 20th century. ;-)
>
>However I understand that some folks just flat out don't like'm. To each
>his/her own, but I think they're missing out.
In a lot of ways I prefer the tabs method. Vista shows a mini screen
shot of each open window so if I have more than 1 open, I can see
easily which one I want rather than just guessing.
On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:29:09 +0000, Neredbojias writ:
>
>> On 20 Apr 2008, freemont
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:42:08 +0200, Neredbojias writ:
>>>
>>>> Whoever invented tabs should burn in hell for all eternity.
>>>
>>> That would be Opera, my favorite browser... >8-O
>>>
>>> En Garde!
>>
>> Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>> tab...?
>
> No, it's greyed out, just like on a new window. But...
>
>> Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is where
>> the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
>
> When I open a link in a new tab (here by clicking the mouse wheel),
> and I'm done with that new tab, I simply close the tab, which brings
> me back to the original tab. Unlike using the back button, I don't
> have to wait for the original page to reload, because it never went
> anywhere, and who knows, maybe I want to keep the new page/site open.
> Maybe I'm shopping, and one tab has a list of goods, and three other
> tabs have different item details.
>
> I taught my wife how to use tabs with her Yahoo mail. Want to read an
> email, click it with the mouse wheel. It opens in a new tab. Done with
> the email, close the tab and there's the original list of emails just
> like she left it. No waiting. No confusion of multiple Firefox windows
> showing in her taskbar.
Ahem, so there's a "confusion" of tabs on top of the browser window
instead. Anyway, I really don't see a heck of a lot of difference. I
prefer new windows basically because disabling tabs gives me more
viewport and I don't use that functionality much, anyway. I don't
condemn them, really, but - eh, who cares...
> Tabs rule. Back buttons are soooo 20th
> century. ;-)
Yeah, back in the last millenium we even had fixed-width websites. Hard
to believe, ain't it?
> However I understand that some folks just flat out don't like'm. To
> each his/her own, but I think they're missing out.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On 20 Apr 2008, richard
>>Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>>tab...? Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is
>>where the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
>
> A new tab just replaces a new window. The back button is active within
> that tab only. It does not jump between tabs.
So a tab is basically an additional in-browser new window.
> I've never seen buttons on the bottom.
I mean the restore "things" on the taskbar.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On 2008-04-21, Neredbojias
> On 20 Apr 2008, richard
>
>>>Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>>>tab...? Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I see is
>>>where the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
>>
>> A new tab just replaces a new window. The back button is active within
>> that tab only. It does not jump between tabs.
>
> So a tab is basically an additional in-browser new window.
Correct, and really tabs should be built into the OS desktop window
manager, not into the browser, so you can use them for all sorts of
applications not just browsers. I think newer versions of KDE may
already do this.
The truth revealed by tabs is that most desktop window managers aren't
very good at managing windows. They clutter your desktop with usually no
easy way of sorting them or moving between them. More than 3 or 4
windows soon becomes annoying so many people prefer another 30 or so
tabs tucked away in each one of them.
Resizing and moving windows, which is what desktop window managers are
good at and some of which is what tabs take away from you, is not
something you actually want to do very often in practice. You mostly
want a couple of windows visible at any one time but to rotate the
contents of each one around from a much larger selection. A couple of
terminal windows with screen(1) running in each one is pretty good. It
would be nice to have a graphical version of screen.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:05:03 +0000, Neredbojias writ:
>> Tabs rule. Back buttons are soooo 20th century. ;-)
>
> Yeah, back in the last millenium we even had fixed-width websites. Hard
> to believe, ain't it?
Ahem.
/me stuffs hands in pockets, whistles, kicks at imaginary rock
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On 21 Apr 2008, freemont
>>> Tabs rule. Back buttons are soooo 20th century. ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, back in the last millenium we even had fixed-width websites. Hard
>> to believe, ain't it?
>
> Ahem.
> /me stuffs hands in pockets, whistles, kicks at imaginary rock
When I stick my hands in my pockets, I try to avoid rocks.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On 21 Apr 2008, Ben C
> On 2008-04-21, Neredbojias
>> On 20 Apr 2008, richard
>>
>>>>Well, I guess if one uses tabs, the back button goes to the previous
>>>>tab...? Other than that, the only difference (vs. new windows) I
>>>>see is where the "buttons" are - top or bottom.
>>>
>>> A new tab just replaces a new window. The back button is active
>>> within that tab only. It does not jump between tabs.
>>
>> So a tab is basically an additional in-browser new window.
>
> Correct, and really tabs should be built into the OS desktop window
> manager, not into the browser, so you can use them for all sorts of
> applications not just browsers.
Yes, I believe that would make a lot more sense. The taskbar-new window
system isn't great, which is probably why tabs evolved in the 1st place.
> I think newer versions of KDE may
> already do this.
>
> The truth revealed by tabs is that most desktop window managers aren't
> very good at managing windows. They clutter your desktop with usually
> no easy way of sorting them or moving between them. More than 3 or 4
> windows soon becomes annoying so many people prefer another 30 or so
> tabs tucked away in each one of them.
Maybe Microsoft can put their think-tank unit on it and... Well, no...
> Resizing and moving windows, which is what desktop window managers are
> good at and some of which is what tabs take away from you, is not
> something you actually want to do very often in practice. You mostly
> want a couple of windows visible at any one time but to rotate the
> contents of each one around from a much larger selection. A couple of
> terminal windows with screen(1) running in each one is pretty good. It
> would be nice to have a graphical version of screen.
You seem to have a handle on this. I'm just a simple end-user who wants
something that works without having to "think about" it or futz with it
unnecessarily. Is that too much to ask?
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:23:21 -0500, Ben C writ:
> Correct, and really tabs should be built into the OS desktop window
> manager, not into the browser, so you can use them for all sorts of
> applications not just browsers. I think newer versions of KDE may already
> do this.
You mean like:
http://tinyurl.com/4u3ytt
That's mine. I never thought of my desktop pager as "tabs", but I guess the
idea is similar. Interesting. :-)
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
On 2008-04-21, freemont
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:23:21 -0500, Ben C writ:
>
>> Correct, and really tabs should be built into the OS desktop window
>> manager, not into the browser, so you can use them for all sorts of
>> applications not just browsers. I think newer versions of KDE may already
>> do this.
>
> You mean like:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4u3ytt
>
> That's mine. I never thought of my desktop pager as "tabs", but I guess the
> idea is similar. Interesting. :-)
Ah you mean multiple desktops. Those are useful too but I was thinking
more of the tabs you can open in programs like Konsole or the Gnome
terminal.
The idea is you could make all programs that can open multiple windows
optionally open multiple tabs instead at a stroke.
In article
Ben C
> On 2008-04-21, freemont
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:23:21 -0500, Ben C writ:
> >
> >> Correct, and really tabs should be built into the OS desktop window
> >> manager, not into the browser, so you can use them for all sorts of
> >> applications not just browsers. I think newer versions of KDE may already
> >> do this.
> >
> > You mean like:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4u3ytt
> >
> > That's mine. I never thought of my desktop pager as "tabs", but I guess the
> > idea is similar. Interesting. :-)
>
> Ah you mean multiple desktops. Those are useful too but I was thinking
> more of the tabs you can open in programs like Konsole or the Gnome
> terminal.
>
> The idea is you could make all programs that can open multiple windows
> optionally open multiple tabs instead at a stroke.
I was printing on an old Mac on the earlier OS 9 today and I was
reminded of this thread. You can drag folders down to the bottom and
they magically become tabs down there, all lined up neat and clicking
makes them open *up*. That certainly stops the desktop from being so
cluttered. But I guess this is not quite what you are talking about in
relation to apps.
--
dorayme