 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmail com> wrote in message
news:47dee47d@news.povray.org...
> that's why I prefer tabbed browsing rather than the traditional browsing
> mode...
Well yes, but seriously, I have real problems trying anything other than
I'm used to that works well 'normally' for me. And then you get this. Don't
get me wrong, I knew about this years ago, and even have some code lying
around here somewhere (I think, I used to have it), that could do it for my
works website, but I'd never want that behaviour.
And yes, I've always had FF loaded up and ready to go, but never use it.
(Lightning strikes Steve from above, and Steve MUST try harder!) ;)
</Break the grip!> ;)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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
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.
Many website designers (myself included) have code to ensure that their site
is not loaded into other people's frames
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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? >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] devnull> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
