From: Abigail Date: 23:31 on 10 Mar 2006 Subject: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline So, you're the son of the son of the son of Mosaic, and half the geeks think you're the best thing since sliced bread. And you're supposed to be able to surpress popups - a feat you display prominently each and every time *you display a popup*. Not only do you annoy me with the popups, you also lie to me, claiming you did something you didn't. Too bad Internet Explorer doesn't run on Linux. Abigail --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEEgw3BOh7Ggo6rasRAlRfAKCfgYNNb72hAHGshCF2iB5UbIiVFACgwyRq w5NRI56XddRP5V3eSjusp18= =fKuh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QRj9sO5tAVLaXnSD--
From: Juerd Date: 23:38 on 10 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. Abigail skribis 2006-03-11 0:31 (+0100): > Too bad Internet Explorer doesn't run on Linux. Does too, with wine. Juerd
From: Chris Nandor Date: 23:53 on 10 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. At 0:31 +0100 2006.03.11, Abigail wrote: >So, you're the son of the son of the son of Mosaic, and half the geeks >think you're the best thing since sliced bread. And you're supposed to >be able to surpress popups - a feat you display prominently each and >every time *you display a popup*. > >Not only do you annoy me with the popups, you also lie to me, claiming >you did something you didn't. > > >Too bad Internet Explorer doesn't run on Linux. I share your hate, but unfortunately, MSIE is far worse, in many ways. Why is it that the biggest killer app of the Internet has, for more than a decade, been a big steaming pile of crap? OK, I admit it is better now that it was five years ago. Maybe it will be better still in another five, but I won't hold my breath ...
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:59 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * Chris Nandor <pudge@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-03-11 01:55]: >Why is it that the biggest killer app of the Internet has, for >more than a decade, been a big steaming pile of crap? OK, I >admit it is better now that it was five years ago. Maybe it >will be better still in another five, but I won't hold my >breath... Just be sure to hold your nose, tightly. Regards,
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:25 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxx.xx> [2006-03-11 00:35]: >And you're supposed to be able to surpress popups - a feat you >display prominently each and every time *you display a popup*. I find the blocker does work, but is not airtight. Unfortunately marketers live in an alternate reality in which pissing me off by overstepping my express wish not to be be bothered somehow makes me want to buy their products. Regards,
From: Abigail Date: 00:40 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 01:25:46AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxx.xx> [2006-03-11 00:35]: > >And you're supposed to be able to surpress popups - a feat you > >display prominently each and every time *you display a popup*. >=20 > I find the blocker does work, but is not airtight. Unfortunately > marketers live in an alternate reality in which pissing me off by > overstepping my express wish not to be be bothered somehow makes > me want to buy their products. My hate isn't so much that it doesn't prevent a popup, my hate is that it proudly exclaims it prevented a popup when it didn't. Now, if you can detect there was a popup, you should be able to=20 prevent it, shouldn't you? Abigail --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEEhyCBOh7Ggo6rasRAiE2AKC2xcmjqvdbyyEl/Yf9E+SLKkC8kQCcDtK0 E2ubyNHTFHuFySIvR+lTqNI= =Usbh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wULyF7TL5taEdwHz--
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:58 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * Abigail <abigail@xxxxxxx.xx> [2006-03-11 01:45]: >My hate isn't so much that it doesn't prevent a popup, my hate >is that it proudly exclaims it prevented a popup when it didn't. > >Now, if you can detect there was a popup, you should be able to >prevent it, shouldn't you? Depends on how the popup is written; it may be doing something that triggers the blocker while still managing to evade it. The blocker may also have actually caught one popup but missed another. Or the blocker might indeed be broken, of course. Who knows. Commerce on the web always brings out hatefulness one way or another. Regards,
From: Michael Leuchtenburg Date: 01:01 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. Spake Abigail: > My hate isn't so much that it doesn't prevent a popup, my hate > is that it proudly exclaims it prevented a popup when it didn't. > > Now, if you can detect there was a popup, you should be able to > prevent it, shouldn't you? On a lot of sites, the designers use multiple methods to get around all the various methods of blocking popups. So, if Firefox blocks one of the methods, but not all of them, then it'll see - and block - some popups, but others will get through.
From: Chris Devers Date: 04:26 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote: > On a lot of sites, the designers use multiple methods to get around > all the various methods of blocking popups. So, if Firefox blocks one > of the methods, but not all of them, then it'll see - and block - some > popups, but others will get through. Where are you supposed to turn if you just don't EVER want a web page to open new content in a new window? Some web applications depend on having multiple windows open, but in almost every case I'd prefer one window with multiple tabs. No luck. For that matter, all the browsers have tabs now, even the betas for the next IE revision. Why can't we (as users, as developers, whatever) tell the browser to direct new windows into tabs in the current window? I seem to remember a Firefox plugin that did this, but that doesn't count, on grounds that nearly no one is using it, so web developers can't be expected to depend on it being available. If mainline Firefox (or one of the modern peers to it) supported scripting tabs, this problem could start to go away. As it is now, we're stuck :-/
From: Jason Diamond Date: 07:23 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On 3/10/06, Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > I seem to remember a Firefox plugin that did this, but that doesn't > count, on grounds that nearly no one is using it, so web developers > can't be expected to depend on it being available. If mainline Firefox > (or one of the modern peers to it) supported scripting tabs, this > problem could start to go away. As it is now, we're stuck :-/ Why do you care how windows open for people other than yourself? Install the extension and be happy. If you use Greasemonkey, the "_blank Must Die" script sounds like it could be just what you're looking for: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/1691 -- Jason
From: Chris Devers Date: 08:47 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Jason Diamond wrote: > Why do you care how windows open for people other than yourself? Because the web applications I have to use every day aren't tested against Firefox, so Greasemonkey doesn't help me. :-/ But really, I don't get why we don't have a way to script this kind of thing yet. We can do annoying crap like popup windows and animated text in the status bar, but no tab management at all, last I checked. (Which was, admittedly, a year or two ago now.) Oh well, whatever, I don't do web development anymore, and am much happier for it.
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 09:56 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 23:26 -0500, Chris Devers wrote: > Where are you supposed to turn if you just don't EVER want a web page to > open new content in a new window? > > Some web applications depend on having multiple windows open, but in > almost every case I'd prefer one window with multiple tabs. No luck. > > For that matter, all the browsers have tabs now, even the betas for the > next IE revision. Why can't we (as users, as developers, whatever) tell > the browser to direct new windows into tabs in the current window? I've used Galeon for ages (Mozilla based GNOME browser). I have "Open new windows in tabs set". I've never seen any window or popup open anywhere except in a tab by the one I'm currently in. It even groups the tabs nicely for me. This problem seems to have been solved long ago. Nothing to see here, move on. Cheers, Martin.
From: Chris Devers Date: 15:47 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Martin Ebourne wrote: > I've used Galeon for ages (Mozilla based GNOME browser). I have "Open > new windows in tabs set". I've never seen any window or popup open > anywhere except in a tab by the one I'm currently in. It even groups > the tabs nicely for me. > > This problem seems to have been solved long ago. Nothing to see here, > move on. Yes, but then you have to use GNOME. You're not really coming out ahead that way, you see? One step forward, four steps back.
From: Luke Kanies Date: 16:13 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Sat, 11 Mar 2006, Martin Ebourne wrote: > I've used Galeon for ages (Mozilla based GNOME browser). I have "Open > new windows in tabs set". I've never seen any window or popup open > anywhere except in a tab by the one I'm currently in. It even groups the > tabs nicely for me. My Firefox 1.5.0.1 has this option in the Tabs pane, and it seems to work well on my Mac.
From: Peter da Silva Date: 16:22 on 11 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Mar 10, 2006, at 10:26 PM, Chris Devers wrote: > Where are you supposed to turn if you just don't EVER want a web page > to > open new content in a new window? Camino and Camioptions. [] Always re-use active window [] Block if link will open a new window
From: Phil Pennock
Date: 02:52 on 12 Mar 2006
Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox.
On 2006-03-10 at 23:26 -0500, Chris Devers wrote:
> Where are you supposed to turn if you just don't EVER want a web page to
> open new content in a new window?
Round and round in a tight circle?
Not defending Mozilla, but since people are complaining, there's a
chance that they want to know how to work around it, so I'll cut&paste
in something I wrote to someone else with the same rant, about halfway
through February; two separate emails, mostly enumeration of options:
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
There have been more and more sites using flash to bypass the Firefox
pop-up blocking; what happens is that the browser exposes the controls
necessary via its DOM interface and flash provides DOM objects. They do
seem to have introduced a new set of allowed events, though. :^(
Go to about:config as a URL, and change these:
privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins
(might need creating as new integer): set to 2
0 = Allow all popups from plugins.
1 = Allow popups from plugins, but limit the number of popups to
dom.popup_maximum
2 = Block popups from plugins.
3 = Block all popups from plugins, even on whitelisted sites.
dom.popup_allowed_events
set to empty string, to completely disable them all
(some websites have legitimate need, so they try to balance this)
If you find some sites which need popups (boo!) for things like a
calendar or for help windows, change dom.popup_maximum to a low number
instead of 20. 20, ffs!
There's also:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/experimental/popupsdie/
which allegedly does this stuff for you.
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
They keep messing with the various tab options and what's available to
control in the base and what in extensions.
Extension method:
"Tab Mix Plus Options" (reached from Extensions list, right-click,
Options, because I unchecked its pollute-my-Tools-menu checkbox,
Menu->"Tools Menu" within this dialog). Links button, top right.
First option, "Open links that open in a new window in:" and the
options are "New window", "New tab" and "Current tab". So to treat
target="_new" equivalently to a normal link, set that to "Current tab".
Direct configuration method: about:config, modify
browser.link.open_newwindow to set value integer "1". Untested;
rationale:
The page <URL:http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries> mentions
for browser.block.target_new_window that it's no longer in use and
points to browser.link.open_newwindow instead; that change is probably
why things broke.
I have the "default" values for these, despite the first value
contradictig the knowledgebase's documented default:
browser.link.open_newwindow 3
browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction 2
browser.link.open_newwindow.ui 3
browser.link.open_newwindow
Where to open links that would normally open in a new window
2 (default): In a new window
3: In a new tab
1 (or anything else): In the current window
browser.link.open_newwindow.restriction
Firefox and SeaMonkey only. Source: The Burning Edge.
0 (Default in SeaMonkey): Force all new windows opened by JavaScript
into tabs.
1: Let all windows opened by JavaScript open in new windows.
(Default behavior in IE.)
2 (Default in Firefox): Catch new windows opened by JavaScript that do
not have specific values set (how large the window should be,
whether it should have a status bar, etc.) This is useful because
some popups are legitimate . it really is useful to be able to see
both the popup and the original window at the same time. However,
most advertising popups also open in new windows with values set, so
beware.
browser.link.open_newwindow.ui
Determine which new window open options are available from the UI. No
longer used in Firefox 1.0. Default value is 3.
-----------------------------< cut here >-------------------------------
-Phil
From: Peter da Silva Date: 09:59 on 12 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. > There have been more and more sites using flash to bypass the Firefox > pop-up blocking; Aha! That's why I don't see this, because flashblock keeps the secret flash from running!
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 19:03 on 12 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-03-12 11:05]: >>There have been more and more sites using flash to bypass the >>Firefox pop-up blocking; > >Aha! That's why I don't see this, because flashblock keeps the >secret flash from running! Some sites also use `onmousedown` or other such events to show popups, because the blocker lets those pass on the assumption that the're user-requested. So you get a popup when, say, you click into the text to select some of it. SitePoint is such an offender, f.ex. Regards,
From: Robert G. Werner Date: 21:21 on 12 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-03-12 11:05]: >>> There have been more and more sites using flash to bypass the >>> Firefox pop-up blocking; >> Aha! That's why I don't see this, because flashblock keeps the >> secret flash from running! > > Some sites also use `onmousedown` or other such events to show > popups, because the blocker lets those pass on the assumption > that the're user-requested. So you get a popup when, say, you > click into the text to select some of it. SitePoint is such an > offender, f.ex. > > Regards, addblock or one of the variants might help in this case because you could block the offending js file from loading (As long as they didn't inline that function, that is).
From: Philip Newton Date: 14:44 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On 3/11/06, Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Why can't we (as users, as developers, whatever) tell > the browser to direct new windows into tabs in the current window? Because then you get what I had for a while: a popup opening in a new tab. Which the application then attempts to resize (thinking that the popup is in a window of its own), resulting in my entire browser window (including all tabs) suddenly shrinking to postage stamp size, which means I have to drag the border out to the size I like it at again. Hateful thing. -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx>
From: Martin Ebourne Date: 14:51 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Because then you get what I had for a while: a popup opening in a new > tab. Which the application then attempts to resize (thinking that the > popup is in a window of its own), resulting in my entire browser > window (including all tabs) suddenly shrinking to postage stamp size, > which means I have to drag the border out to the size I like it at > again. That's a hateful browser. Mine just ignores the resize on tabbed windows (actually it does use the size for rendering the background, but leaves the window well alone.) Martin.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 14:53 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * Philip Newton <philip.newton@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-03-13 15:45]: >Because then you get what I had for a while: a popup opening in >a new tab. Which the application then attempts to resize >(thinking that the popup is in a window of its own), resulting >in my entire browser window (including all tabs) suddenly >shrinking to postage stamp size, It goes without saying that scripts should not have the power to affect the browser window in any way. You can turn that off in Firefox even, but I think it does not ignore the script-supplied window dimensions when opening new windows into tabs, as it bloody well should. Regards,
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 16:26 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. > Because then you get what I had for a while: a popup opening in a new > tab. Which the application then attempts to resize HATE of the day ... browsers where disabling "resize window" doesn't keep pages from resizing the window.
From: Abigail Date: 20:40 on 14 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 03:44:12PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > On 3/11/06, Chris Devers <cdevers@xxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > Why can't we (as users, as developers, whatever) tell > > the browser to direct new windows into tabs in the current window? >=20 > Because then you get what I had for a while: a popup opening in a new > tab. Which the application then attempts to resize (thinking that the > popup is in a window of its own), resulting in my entire browser > window (including all tabs) suddenly shrinking to postage stamp size, > which means I have to drag the border out to the size I like it at > again. Related browser hate: when a browser window resizes itself, and I=20 kill the window, the browser "helpfully" remembers the size and when you create another browser window (including exiting the browser and firing it up again), it creates the window in that size.=20 Only way out of it seems to scale a window to you preferred size,=20 wait about ten minutes, kill that window and wait another ten minutes before creating a new window. Only then it has forgotten the size. Abigail --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEFypUBOh7Ggo6rasRAn6DAKC0fwm1ru9ZMJ/ZNHui5fMShb1aLwCgq4gd /Qefu2CieC0MzSpO9LuPc3M= =5miR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ReaqsoxgOBHFXBhH--
From: David Cantrell Date: 11:51 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 08:01:48PM -0500, Michael Leuchtenburg wrote: > On a lot of sites, the designers use multiple methods to get around all > the various methods of blocking popups. So, if Firefox blocks one of the > methods, but not all of them, then it'll see - and block - some popups, > but others will get through. Those designers are hateful. However, so are the Firefox authors who can't seem to stop them. The way to stop them seems obvious to me. If the user has selected the menu thingy to block popups, then Firefox should prevent any new windows being created at all, regardless of how they are created, except in direct response to either the user selecting the "new window" menu entry, the user selecting "open link in new window" from a link's context menu, the user middle-clicking on a link, or the user starting another copy of firefox. Creating a new window under any other circumstance is WRONG. Firefox's broken handling of trying to run two copies of it at once is a whole different rant. If I type "mozila-firefox&" I want to start a new instance of firefox, I don't want the process to realise that it has a cousin already running and just work some juju to re-use that. I might want to, for example, use a different $DISPLAY. And fuck all that stupid "user profile" shit too. HATE.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 12:07 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-13 12:55]: >Creating a new window under any other circumstance is WRONG. That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to work (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can ignore them) that the popup blocking setting would have to be considered hateful ANYWAY. Maybe extra-strong popup blocking should be a hidden pref. >Firefox's broken handling of trying to run two copies of it at >once is a whole different rant. > >And fuck all that stupid "user profile" shit too. Agreed, that's noise. The worst is that trying to launch a new instance of Firefox as a different user *still* reuses the already-running copy. This is REALLY funny-ha-ha-I-get-it when the X server is remote and the Firefox instances come from different machines. *froth* Regards,
From: David Champion
Date: 15:26 on 13 Mar 2006
Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox.
* On 2006.03.13, in <20060313120717.GM2783@klangraum>,
* "A. Pagaltzis" <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote:
> * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-13 12:55]:
> >Creating a new window under any other circumstance is WRONG.
>
> That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to work
Well, yes. That happens if I change any number of other things too
(Javascript off? Java off? New windows in tabs? Cookies only from
issuing site?) but it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be permitted to
break so many webapps if I know what I'm up to. Most days I don't
use such web apps, so should be allowed to make them not work for my
sanity's sake.
> (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can ignore
> them) that the popup blocking setting would have to be considered
> hateful ANYWAY. Maybe extra-strong popup blocking should be a
> hidden pref.
Hidden? No, thanks. Nobody should need any special command-line voodoo
(that's likely to change from one supported platform to another) to
enable basic features, regardless of how "this can break things if your
brain shuts down" they are. Just put warnings where suitable, and
support both named (by the user) and generic configuration profiles to
sweepingly change all your preferences:
o Open configuration (allows most actions; supports most web apps)
o Closed configuration (denies some actions; breaks some arcane apps)
o Tight configuration (you like sanity more than web developers do)
o Paranoid configuration (you talk to your shrink about privacy)
To accompany that, I'd like having a discreet little indicator somewhere
in the window frame area that lights up to tell me that some code has
attempted to open a window of {normal window | tiny irritating popup |
modal dialog[ue] } type, containing N separate visual elements. Hey,
maybe if I click the indicator or press the "open all the little
windows" keystroke, the window opens anyway, even if my preferences say
"don't open new windows."
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 16:36 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * David Champion <dgc@xxxxxxxx.xxx> [2006-03-13 17:25]: >Hidden? No, thanks. Nobody should need any special >command-line voodoo (that's likely to change from one supported >platform to another) to enable basic features, regardless of how >"this can break things if your brain shuts down" they are. Hidden pref in Firefox lingo just means a setting for which there's no particular UI. You get at those using `about:config`, which is standard across all platforms -- no need to panic. Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 10:46 on 14 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:07:17PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-13 12:55]: > > Creating a new window under any other circumstance is WRONG. > That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to work > (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can ignore > them) that the popup blocking setting would have to be considered > hateful ANYWAY. Maybe extra-strong popup blocking should be a > hidden pref. None that I can think of. Well, none that I want to work anyway, cos the only ones I can think of are advertising shite. Really, I can't think of a single site I've ever used where I would want popups to appear other than in the circumstances I specified. I suppose you're right, Firefox can't ignore them. It should still block them though, but it already shows a little thingy at the top of the window to tell me that it blocked a popup, so it needs to add something there to "allow popups on this page/site" - in other words, block by default, make whitelisting really easy. It would also be nice if popup windows had a thingy saying "this is a popup from your whitelist, click here to delete that whitelist entry".
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 19:41 on 14 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-14 11:50]: >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:07:17PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: >> * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-13 12:55]: >> > Creating a new window under any other circumstance is WRONG. >> That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to >> work (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can >> ignore them) that the popup blocking setting would have to be >> considered hateful ANYWAY. Maybe extra-strong popup blocking >> should be a hidden pref. > >None that I can think of. Well, none that I want to work >anyway, cos the only ones I can think of are advertising shite. >Really, I can't think of a single site I've ever used where I >would want popups to appear other than in the circumstances I >specified. I use several sites where the [Preview] button on a posting form pops up a window; also an online banking site where clicking a link to recall presets for a transaction brings up a popup for selecting a preset. Two airlines I've booked flights with use popups -- one for date selection, one for half the booking process. >I suppose you're right, Firefox can't ignore them. That's the problem. I don't like the use of popups on any of these sites either, but I need to use them, and browser makers don't really have the option to not support these sites. Users will just use another browser that they don't have to fight as much (even if it means they are flooded with junk otherwise). So the popup blocking has to be strong enough to prevent the crap as much as possible but not so much that it would prevent all "legitimate" popups as well -- same situation as spam filters. For users who accept the inconvenience, a draconian blocker would be good to be included, but it can't be the default. It's all one big crapola. >It should still block them though, but it already shows a little >thingy at the top of the window to tell me that it blocked a >popup, so it needs to add something there to "allow popups on >this page/site" - in other words, block by default, make >whitelisting really easy. Yeah, it does that already. >It would also be nice if popup windows had a thingy saying "this >is a popup from your whitelist, click here to delete that >whitelist entry". That it doesn’t, to my knowledge. Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 19:05 on 15 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:41:47PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-14 11:50]: > >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:07:17PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >> That is a fine theory, except so many webapps would cease to > >> work (yes, they're hateful; no, that doesn't mean Firefox can > >> ignore them) that the popup blocking setting would have to be > >> considered hateful ANYWAY. Maybe extra-strong popup blocking > >> should be a hidden pref. > >None that I can think of. Well, none that I want to work > >anyway, cos the only ones I can think of are advertising shite. > >Really, I can't think of a single site I've ever used where I > >would want popups to appear other than in the circumstances I > >specified. > I use several sites where the [Preview] button on a posting form > pops up a window You mean that something pops up when you click on something? That's precisely what my cunning plan would permit.
From: A. Pagaltzis Date: 00:49 on 16 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-15 20:10]: >You mean that something pops up when you click on something? >That's precisely what my cunning plan would permit. Well, there are popups which exploit that, so an idle click on a page (say, to select some text) will bring up an ad. Regards,
From: David Cantrell Date: 17:45 on 16 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 01:49:35AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Cantrell <david@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> [2006-03-15 20:10]: > >You mean that something pops up when you click on something? > >That's precisely what my cunning plan would permit. > Well, there are popups which exploit that, so an idle click on a > page (say, to select some text) will bring up an ad. By "click on" I mean "mouse down and mouse up at the same point", like what you do when you click on a link. Selecting text is completely different. It's "mouse down, move, mouse up". Are you being deliberately obtuse?
From: Simon Wilcox Date: 17:56 on 16 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, David Cantrell wrote: > By "click on" I mean "mouse down and mouse up at the same point", like > what you do when you click on a link. Selecting text is completely > different. It's "mouse down, move, mouse up". I've seen sites that are using regular links, like wot you would really want to click on, to trigger a pop-under as you head off to the next page. Now that is f**king hateful ! Simon.
From: Phil Pennock Date: 23:47 on 17 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On 2006-03-16 at 17:56 +0000, Simon Wilcox wrote: > I've seen sites that are using regular links, like wot you would really > want to click on, to trigger a pop-under as you head off to the next page. Is there any legitimate use for popups which remain popped up when the page which triggered them changes URL? I must be really dense, but I've been thinking that the fix is for browsers to close all popups associated with a page either when the document URL changes, or perhaps when it changes to reference another host. I've not yet figured out what the problem with that is and why it's not done. What am I missing, or is this another example of browsers being hatefully stoopid?
From: Jeremy Weathers
Date: 00:20 on 18 Mar 2006
Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox.
> Is there any legitimate use for popups which remain popped up
> when the page which triggered them changes URL?
I've used a webmail app that has a popup for checking for new mail
every n minutes and sounding an alert if new mail has arrived. When
I was using it, I closed the main window completely and left the
popup in the background.
--=20
Jeremy Weathers
Sony-Ericsson: We put the "slow" in
"Damn, this crappy phone is slow!"
- Wil Shipley
From: Phil Pennock Date: 22:30 on 18 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On 2006-03-17 at 18:20 -0600, Jeremy Weathers wrote: > I've used a webmail app that has a popup for checking for new mail > every n minutes and sounding an alert if new mail has arrived. When > I was using it, I closed the main window completely and left the > popup in the background. On 2006-03-18 at 08:48 +0000, Smylers wrote: > At work I use a site which displays the real-time running times of buses > from the stop just outside our office. It offers these in a small > pop-up window, which I leave in the corner of my screen, but then I > close the site that launched it. And someone else came up with another point off-list, which was a navigation control for a site. So the default would be to auto-close when a user changes off-site. And since browsers have finally started preventing popups from removing all controls, there should be some bar left which shows browser controls. That can have an old Openwin-style pin control, so that you can pin the damn pop-up onto the desktop if you explicitly want to keep it. Pop-ups to keep are the exception, not the rule, and people who know they want to keep a window are surely prepared to click on a pin? Then if the windows automatically disappear when the user navigates away from the triggering site, much of the incentive for writing the advertising pop-under ones disappears. </vent> -Phil
From: Smylers Date: 08:48 on 18 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. Phil Pennock writes: > Is there any legitimate use for popups which remain popped up when the > page which triggered them changes URL? At work I use a site which displays the real-time running times of buses from the stop just outside our office. It offers these in a small pop-up window, which I leave in the corner of my screen, but then I close the site that launched it. Smylers
From: Bill Page Date: 17:24 on 18 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. what about web-based IM clients? until someone sells enough souls to break through my uni's fuckhead-wall, we're going to like them. and what's with the lack of mac-friendly versions? fuckers On 3/18/06, Smylers <Smylers@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > Phil Pennock writes: > > > Is there any legitimate use for popups which remain popped up when the > > page which triggered them changes URL? > > At work I use a site which displays the real-time running times of buses > from the stop just outside our office. It offers these in a small > pop-up window, which I leave in the corner of my screen, but then I > close the site that launched it. > > Smylers >
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 18:04 on 16 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. > By "click on" I mean "mouse down and mouse up at the same point", like > what you do when you click on a link. Selecting text is completely > different. It's "mouse down, move, mouse up". Double-click selects a word. Click and shift-click select a range of text. Idly Double-click selects a word. Click and shift-click select a range of text. Idly clicking on text because you're not sure you have the right window focussed is pretty common.
From: Chris Devers Date: 13:37 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, David Cantrell wrote: > And fuck all that stupid "user profile" shit too. I hadn't thought of that before, but you're right -- all the platforms that Firefox runs on are multi-user by now, so why does it feel the need to duplicate that functionality? At best it's redundant, and a waste of the Mozilla Corp^H^H^H^HFoundation's seventy million dollars. What is that money for, anyway, if it isn't going towards good software?
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 16:24 on 13 Mar 2006 Subject: Re: Reason #1781 to hate Mosa^H^H^H^HNets^H^H^H^HMozil^H^H^H^H^HFirefox. > I hadn't thought of that before, but you're right -- all the platforms > that Firefox runs on are multi-user by now, so why does it feel the need > to duplicate that functionality? I think of it as "alternate setups", and it'd probably take more time to dyke out than leave in.. And on Windows at least a LOT of people share computers with only one account - Administrator - automatically logged in. (insert hate about Windows maintaining the same stupid single-user insecurity model FOREVER)
Generated at 10:26 on 16 Apr 2008 by mariachi