 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw wrote:
> Many website designers (myself included) have code to ensure that their site
> is not loaded into other people's frames
If you're going to do a meta-refresh to avoid this, put a delay in
instead of doing it instantly. That'll let people hit back mutliple
times and actually get backwards.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> You know, like on Zazzle, where you open a product in another tab, and
> the *original* tab also changes location, completely negating the entire
> *point* of tabbed browsing? >_<
Or, in a similar vein, where you say "open link in new tab/window" and
it doesn't work, because the javascript link wants to open the content
in a new tab/window.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > that's why I prefer tabbed browsing rather than the traditional browsing
> > mode...
>
> ...which leads us nicely onto "pages that use JavaScript for links".
>
> You know, like on Zazzle, where you open a product in another tab, and
> the *original* tab also changes location, completely negating the entire
> *point* of tabbed browsing? >_<
yes, that's really p*** me off! So, there's no way around it: web hackers
always find a way to destroy our fav browsing modes and even add popups in
antipopup browsers (CSS layers popups)... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:47def2f3$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail Shaw wrote:
> > Many website designers (myself included) have code to ensure that their
site
> > is not loaded into other people's frames
>
> If you're going to do a meta-refresh to avoid this, put a delay in
> instead of doing it instantly. That'll let people hit back mutliple
> times and actually get backwards.
iirc, I usually use location.replace (or similar javascript. Can't recall,
no checking) that replaces the previous back entry, so 1 back click takes
you right out.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
I have noticed Firefox fixed this problem some time ago. In it, instead
of the back button going strictly to the previous page, it goes to the
previous user-specified page. In other words, if a page immediately
redirects to another page using javascript or meta refresh or whatever,
Firefox's back button will skip that intermediate page when going back.
Quite handy. (I don't understand why *all* browsers don't do this.
It just doesn't make sense to go back to a page which effectively
immediately goes forward again.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Quite handy. (I don't understand why *all* browsers don't do this.
> It just doesn't make sense to go back to a page which effectively
> immediately goes forward again.)
Because nobody else has realised there's a problem to be fixed yet?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
>
> I have noticed Firefox fixed this problem some time ago. In it, instead
> of the back button going strictly to the previous page, it goes to the
> previous user-specified page. In other words, if a page immediately
> redirects to another page using javascript or meta refresh or whatever,
> Firefox's back button will skip that intermediate page when going back.
>
> Quite handy. (I don't understand why *all* browsers don't do this.
> It just doesn't make sense to go back to a page which effectively
> immediately goes forward again.)
>
All browsers do it if it is a proper HTTP redirect instead of that meta
crap.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
>
> I have noticed Firefox fixed this problem some time ago. In it, instead
> of the back button going strictly to the previous page, it goes to the
> previous user-specified page. In other words, if a page immediately
> redirects to another page using javascript or meta refresh or whatever,
> Firefox's back button will skip that intermediate page when going back.
>
> Quite handy. (I don't understand why *all* browsers don't do this.
> It just doesn't make sense to go back to a page which effectively
> immediately goes forward again.)
Yes, it's quite handy with povray news web interface itself, which
constantly reloads the pages for updates. Someday I was browsing it
with IE and after I came back to it in a while I had to go back several
times in order to get to the main page. A non-issue in FF.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, it's quite handy with povray news web interface itself, which
> constantly reloads the pages for updates. Someday I was browsing it
> with IE and after I came back to it in a while I had to go back several
> times in order to get to the main page. A non-issue in FF.
o_O
I never saw reloading the *current page* causing extra entries on the
back button.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47dee9d2@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47dee683$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> I can't get off the page unless I click 5 times 'really' fast on the
>> back button in IE6 (just discovered that in angry mode! Grr!) :)
>
> No need. There's a small arrow next to the back button in IE 6 (on the
> right
> side in my browser). Click that and you'll get a drop down list of your
> browsing history. Select the second entry down (which should read
> something
> about google images). No screen shot. Is past my bed time already.
>
>> Is there no other way around using that code for a website with
>> frames? BTW, to me frames always = tables. What am I missing with this?
>>
>
> Frames != tables. Tables are a layout tool (an abused one). Frames are
> used
> to create sub 'windows' within one site
Aha! Thanks Gail. Now I understand it a little more. (I know through my own
website code what a table is, I use them myself, but I wouldn't even know
how to implement a 'frame' (which I thought was another name for a table)).
(Yeah, I suck BT). :o/
>
> Some years ago there was a rash of people loading other people's content
> in
> their own frames, making it look as if they were the author of the
> content.
Really? People did that with other peoples websites? *Why* would they do
that? For what reason?
> Many website designers (myself included) have code to ensure that their
> site
> is not loaded into other people's frames
Ok, cool move imo if it works good?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
