things wrong with 3.0

[Golf Girl]

The standard is not questionable. That's why it was used.

I disagree.

http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/02/13/h ... attribute/

Funny you bring that up. Because the author even states:

though it has been terribly misused

Many things can be misused, that does not mean that they should be banned.

Having links open the same window in preview is not a justifiable reason for making them open in a new window. Right-click, ctrl+click, middle-click, whatever.

No, but because opening in a new window has been outlawed, period, it means that they can't even when they should. And for about the millionth time, it does not matter a jot that you can do this or that shortcut to open in a new window, you will never persuade the masses to change to that behaviour, just like you won't get them to throw away their Internet Explorer.

The author of that article even stated:

It should be up to the end user, not the web site, to decide if a link should be opened in the same window, a new window or a new tab; web developers shouldn’t force such behavior on people.

If it's how things have always worked, they should not force a sudden change on people. That's far worse, in my opinion.

If you want your site to open new windows, either get a style that does that, or modify it so it does.

Are you suggesting here that I should use another bulletin board? As a matter of fact, I have already decided to do that on one board that I was intending to convert to phpBB3. My existing phpBB3 board, as I have already said, I will apply the modification to, I have no choice in the matter. I need my boards to not appear 'broken' to my users.

[Techie-Micheal]

The standard is not questionable. That's why it was used.

I disagree.

Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't have an 8 page topic with you complaining.

http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/02/13/h ... attribute/

Funny you bring that up. Because the author even states:

though it has been terribly misused

Many things can be misused, that does not mean that they should be banned.

They are not banned. The misuse, the things you want to do, are no longer the default option.

Having links open the same window in preview is not a justifiable reason for making them open in a new window. Right-click, ctrl+click, middle-click, whatever.

No, but because opening in a new window has been outlawed, period, it means that they can't even when they should.

No it hasn't. Right-click and open a new window. There's nothing preventing the user from doing that. On the other hand, there is something preventing the user from navigating a website the way they want when it is forced on them.

And for about the millionth time, it does not matter a jot that you can do this or that shortcut to open in a new window, you will never persuade the masses to change to that behaviour, just like you won't get them to throw away their Internet Explorer.

Exaggeration is not a good quality. As for changing behavior, that's what user education is for. A wrong behavior is a wrong behavior, and at some point needs to be changed. That's why precautions are now taken when dealing with xrays, when dealing with contaminated food, when dealing with whatever. Practices change to improve outdated practices. It is a simple fact of life.

The author of that article even stated:

It should be up to the end user, not the web site, to decide if a link should be opened in the same window, a new window or a new tab; web developers shouldn’t force such behavior on people.

If it's how things have always worked, they should not force a sudden change on people. That's far worse, in my opinion.

This is not sudden. This has been in play for years. People are just now paying attention.

If you want your site to open new windows, either get a style that does that, or modify it so it does.

Are you suggesting here that I should use another bulletin board? As a matter of fact, I have already decided to do that on one board that I was intending to convert to phpBB3. My existing phpBB3 board, as I have already said, I will apply the modification to, I have no choice in the matter. I need my boards to not appear 'broken' to my users.

Hmmm. What's the difference between a new style and a new piece of software? Quite a bit, it turns out. I never said to get a new piece of software. I said to change how the existing software behaves.

[A_O_C]

golf girl, standards are standards. phpbb is not the problem because the software follows standards. if you dont like the standards, then your complaining to the wrong people. have you tried contacting w3c? honestly...

[Highway of Life]

Golf Girl, this discussion is still going in circles. As a summary, here are the facts.

Fact: Opening links in new windows has never been the default option, but it was an option that web designers could use. The default behaviour has always been to open links in the same window.

Fact: For years now, that default option has been removed because it forces specific behaviour with no option for an alternative. i.e. you cannot force a link to open in the same window when it uses the attribute set to open in a new window.

Fact: The W3C dropped the target attribute from all HTML strict versions (HTML/XHTML) because it was deemed not user-friendly.

The objective of this technique is to avoid confusion that may be caused by the appearance of new windows that were not requested by the user. Suddenly opening new windows can disorientate or be missed completely by some users. In HTML 4.01 Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Transitional, the target attribute can be used to open a new window, instead of automatic pop-ups. (The target attribute is deleted from HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict.) Note that not using the target allows the user to decide whether a new window should be opened or not.

Usage of the target attribute in other versions (Transitional for example) should be limited to frames and not opening links in new windows, thereby taking browser control away from the user.

Fact: The lack of the target attribute is a good standard. The decision was correctly made to remove it from strict versions of (X)HTML, and phpBB made the correct decision to follow this guideline.

Fact: The W3C does not have any questionable or bad guidelines and standards. These standards and guidelines are necessary to utilise the full potential for the web.

The fact that you do not like correct browsing techniques, correct standards, etc, is not the fault of phpBB or the W3C. It is your own personal preference, which is just fine, but it is wrong to force these bad techniques and standards on others.

[T50]

Golf Girl, this discussion is still going in circles. As a summary, here are the facts.

Fact: Opening links in new windows has never been the default option, but it was an option that web designers could use. The default behaviour has always been to open links in the same window.

Fact: For years now, that default option has been removed because it forces specific behaviour with no option for an alternative. i.e. you cannot force a link to open in the same window when it uses the attribute set to open in a new window.

Fact: The W3C dropped the target attribute from all HTML strict versions (HTML/XHTML) because it was deemed not user-friendly.

The objective of this technique is to avoid confusion that may be caused by the appearance of new windows that were not requested by the user. Suddenly opening new windows can disorientate or be missed completely by some users. In HTML 4.01 Transitional and XHTML 1.0 Transitional, the target attribute can be used to open a new window, instead of automatic pop-ups. (The target attribute is deleted from HTML 4.01 Strict and XHTML 1.0 Strict.) Note that not using the target allows the user to decide whether a new window should be opened or not.

Usage of the target attribute in other versions (Transitional for example) should be limited to frames and not opening links in new windows, thereby taking browser control away from the user.

Fact: The lack of the target attribute is a good standard. The decision was correctly made to remove it from strict versions of (X)HTML, and phpBB made the correct decision to follow this guideline.

Fact: The W3C does not have any questionable or bad guidelines and standards. These standards and guidelines are necessary to utilise the full potential for the web.

The fact that you do not like correct browsing techniques, correct standards, etc, is not the fault of phpBB or the W3C. It is your own personal preference, which is just fine, but it is wrong to force these bad techniques and standards on others.

WOW, David, you always tend to write these really long but yet very well written, and they always are very informative! Now one question, where did you learn to write like that?

A Golf Girl, david is correct, the issue is not with the code, it is with the end user, the code(phpbb) follows the standards

[Marshalrusty]

Golf Girl, the reasoning for this decision has been provided... several times. Even if you didn't know about it before, you know about it now. The link behavior will not be changed back because it would be illogical to do so. You are more than welcome to disagree, of course. You might want to re-read this topic with an open mind and consider that maybe a few of the people here know what they are talking about.

In any case, the discussion has been exhausted to the point of foolishness.

[Golf Girl]

Golf Girl, the reasoning for this decision has been provided... several times. Even if you didn't know about it before, you know about it now. The link behavior will not be changed back because it would be illogical to do so. You are more than welcome to disagree, of course. You might want to re-read this topic with an open mind and consider that maybe a few of the people here know what they are talking about.

In any case, the discussion has been exhausted to the point of foolishness.

I know it won't be changed back. As long as I am provided with 'fixes' to make things on my board work the way I think they should work (and the way the majority of the internet expects them to work), I'll be a happy bunny. Is that too much to ask?

[Marshalrusty]

As long as I am provided with 'fixes' to make things on my board work the way I think they should work (and the way the majority of the internet expects them to work), I'll be a happy bunny. Is that too much to ask?

Nope, you are welcome to ask for MODs to change the undesired behavior. That, however, is something for the MOD Requests Forum

I'll start you off with the instructions for links: Knowledge Base - Links Opening New Windows
Please start individual topics in MOD Requests for the other changes you wish to make. You may also want to briefly search to see if the MOD exists and is easy to locate.

[Pezzoni]

I know it won't be changed back. As long as I am provided with 'fixes' to make things on my board work the way I think they should work (and the way the majority of the internet expects them to work), I'll be a happy bunny. Is that too much to ask?

You've asserted over and over that the majority of internet users 'expect' this broken behaviour and are confused by the proper behaviour, and your entire argument rests on this. Yet you've yet to provide a shred of evidence that this assumption is actually true.

Standards for the sake of standards is not a good approach, but utilising a well thought out standard which has positive usablilty implications (as does phpBB leaving the behaviour of links up to individual users) is entirely sensible - a viewpoint that has been justified countless times (but you seem unable to comprehend).

I think that you either need to actually provide some validation to your argument in that this change has caused widespread confusion and problems for a significant majority of users (in which case the standard would indeed be 'questionable'), or you need to retract your statements in this thread.

[Son of a Beach]

People had better start getting used to websites working in a standards compliant manner. There may one day come a time when the browser will stick to the standard (at least by default if you don't change its preferences). At this point, no amount of changes to the web application will help the users.

This may never happen, but it's a possibility.

[simvader]

Mass- e-mail is in a strange place...

[karlsemple]

Mass- e-mail is in a strange place...

That I would agree with, you would expect it to be under the client communication menu under the general tab.

[MartectX]

nevermind, didn't notice this topics has moved on for two more pages already

[Highway of Life]

Mass- e-mail is in a strange place...

You could relocate it. -- ACP -> System -> Module Management. Just change the parent id.

[simvader]

Mass- e-mail is in a strange place...

You could relocate it. -- ACP -> System -> Module Management. Just change the parent id.

I know, but very much people don't.. why have the developpers choose to put mass-email there?

I think this is a very unhandy place, especialy when client comunication is a better place...