 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/01/moonlit_beach.php
If you're on Google Images (whatever) and actually looking through
interesting pics, when you come across a site that uses this, it's so
frustrating.
I know it's to keep you on the website, but if you were in a highstreet
shop and the manager locked the door to stop you from leaving, the police
would be involved soonish I think.
Yeah, I know, bad example, but... Bad netiquette too.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ha, dang, direct link. Ok, just put in GI 'moonlit beach' - top row, 5th
entry. Then go back...
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dot com> wrote in message news:47dedebf$1@news.povray.org...
> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/01/moonlit_beach.php
Back button seems to be working for me. Firefox 2.
What behaviour are you seeing?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47dedfcf$1@news.povray.org...
> Ha, dang, direct link. Ok, just put in GI 'moonlit beach' - top row, 5th
> entry. Then go back...
>
Ah, it's not that the back button's disabled. What's happening is that the
site has some javascript to detect if it is in a frame (like the google
images frame) and reload to a full page if it is. So when you hit back,
you're going back to the framed site, which javascript then takes you out of
back to the full screen site.
Easy fix. In forefox, click the arrow next to the back button and select the
google images page (2 down). Ie probably similar.
It's go nothing to do with keeping you on the page, it's to prevent the site
from appearing inside someone else's frames (which is very irritating. Yahoo
used to be a big offender)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
that's why I prefer tabbed browsing rather than the traditional browsing
mode...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. escribió:
> Ha, dang, direct link. Ok, just put in GI 'moonlit beach' - top row, 5th
> entry. Then go back...
>
Not done in purpose. Lots of sites have that kind of stupid things. For
example, all sites that "redirect" you to another using a meta refresh
tag, instead of a proper HTTP redirect. If you click back, you end in
the redirection page, which kicks you back to the page you were in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_refresh
Second paragraph.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47dee06c@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47dedebf$1@news.povray.org...
>> Web pages that refuse the 'back' button.
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2007/01/moonlit_beach.php
>
> Back button seems to be working for me. Firefox 2.
>
> What behaviour are you seeing?
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!) :)
If I do it normally, (ie, slow), I would never get off the page. I don't
know, to me it's really weird, but your explanation to my original post
sounds likely and probable.
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?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospamgmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis escribió:
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47e02cf2$1@news.povray.org...
> "Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
> news:47dee9d2@news.povray.org...
>>
>> 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?
>
I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create
content and pay for bandwith. The system goes on with all those websites
copying content from Wikipedia or from ready-made article databases, just as
lazy/stupid but a little more honest (and they pay for they own bandwith).
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create
> content and pay for bandwith.
I come to the conclusion that advertising sucks most everything good out
of a common infrastructure.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e02cf2$1@news.povray.org...
>
> 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/
>
Here's a frameset from an old website of mine. Creates 2 frames, one loading
the navigation page, one loading the main page.
What you may note is that there's no body element. A page that creates
frames doesn't have a body section.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>The Gila Monster's Nest</title>
</head>
<frameset cols="133,*" frameborder="yes" border="0" bordercolor="Black"
rows="*">
<frame src="Navigation.html" name="Navigation" scrolling="NO">
<frame src="Blank.html" name="Main" scrolling="NO">
</frameset>
<noframes>
No Frames? Main page <a href="Main.html">here</a>
</noframes>
</html>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:47e0506b$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I guess they got money from ads in the top frame without having to create
> content and pay for bandwith. The system goes on with all those websites
> copying content from Wikipedia or from ready-made article databases, just
as
> lazy/stupid but a little more honest (and they pay for they own bandwith).
Or copying other people's blog postingss, which is a big problem these days.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47e09bef@news.povray.org...
> Here's a frameset from an old website of mine. Creates 2 frames, one
> loading
> the navigation page, one loading the main page.
> What you may note is that there's no body element. A page that creates
> frames doesn't have a body section.
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
>
> <head>
> <title>The Gila Monster's Nest</title>
> </head>
Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*, I
particularly remember the elephant shot. :) A friend of mine just took 30
guests out to the Phillipines to get married, and the happy couple arranged
to ride off on an elephant immediately after the wedding. Can't wait to see
THOSE pictures! :o)
>
> <frameset cols="133,*" frameborder="yes" border="0" bordercolor="Black"
> rows="*">
> <frame src="Navigation.html" name="Navigation" scrolling="NO">
> <frame src="Blank.html" name="Main" scrolling="NO">
> </frameset>
> <noframes>
> No Frames? Main page <a href="Main.html">here</a>
> </noframes>
> </html>
Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't think
I'd ever use frames myself.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. escribió:
> Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't think
> I'd ever use frames myself.
It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
> St. escribió:
>> Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't
>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>
> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say, when
doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please blah,
blah, blah" - or something like that?
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. escribió:
> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
> news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
>> St. escribi�:
>>> Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't
>>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
>
> Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say, when
> doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please blah,
> blah, blah" - or something like that?
Yes, those exist. They are the worst.
The "alternate content if frames aren't supported" (<noframes>) is
supposed to be that: *alternate content*. Not a warning saying "your
browser doesn't support frames, get one that does, or I won't show you
anything useful". It should show the normal page contents, in a layout
not requiring frames.
Although if they can make a layout that doesn't need frames, they might
as well use it always and drop the frame-requiring one completely.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> St. escribió:
>> Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't
>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>
> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
They still are only server-side possibility to maintain static
navigational bar and loading only contents while surfing.
Yes, they are widely misused. But eg. when surfing with mobile
connection (GPRS gives 56kbps with 1sec latences if the connection is
good) I like them, because with them it's actually possible to reduce data.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in message
news:47e15fea$1@news.povray.org...
> St. escribió:
>> "Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote in
>> message news:47e15d73$1@news.povray.org...
>>> St. escribi?:
>>>> Ah, I see, thanks. It looks simple to implement, although I don't
>>>> think I'd ever use frames myself.
>>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
>>
>> Yes, I haven't spotted it for ages, but didn't some websites (say,
>> when doing a search), have tags like: "This website uses frames, please
>> blah, blah, blah" - or something like that?
>
> Yes, those exist. They are the worst.
>
> The "alternate content if frames aren't supported" (<noframes>) is
> supposed to be that: *alternate content*. Not a warning saying "your
> browser doesn't support frames, get one that does, or I won't show you
> anything useful". It should show the normal page contents, in a layout not
> requiring frames.
Yes, that's the one! Seriously, I haven't seen that for ages and I used to
see it probably every other day or two(?) (Or, I'm not looking in the bad
places anymore). ;)
Maybe people have changed to something else as sinister in modern way now.
What would that be if so?
>
> Although if they can make a layout that doesn't need frames, they might as
> well use it always and drop the frame-requiring one completely.
True. I think most probably have.
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e15c78@news.povray.org...
>
>
> Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*,
You haven't missed anything. I haven't changed a thing in a couple years.
Still working on the rewrite.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gail Shaw" <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote in message
news:47e1679b@news.povray.org...
>
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e15c78@news.povray.org...
>>
>>
>> Heh, yeah, even though I haven't looked at your site for *ages*,
>
> You haven't missed anything. I haven't changed a thing in a couple years.
> Still working on the rewrite.
Yes, but Gail, you won't know this, but your site was the *first* site I
viewed (just after I found povray.org) where someone was showing their
PoV-Ray images. Without looking, I still remember a graveyard scene that you
did. That was probably seven years ago now and that inspired me. :)
I can only say - thanks. :)
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh, just found it. It was the Callendor series of images - top row, third
one. That's the one that inspired me because I wondered how you did the
yellow light.
Time sure flies...
~Steve~
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote in message news:47e1753c@news.povray.org...
> Heh, just found it. It was the Callendor series of images - top row, third
> one. That's the one that inspired me because I wondered how you did the
> yellow light.
>
> Time sure flies...
It does. That pic's at least 8 years old.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
Depends what you use them for, really. What makes them evil?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A good reason to use noscript in Firefox. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 02:58:11 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> It's a bad idea to use them anyway. Frames are evil.
>
> Depends what you use them for, really. What makes them evil?
The problem used to be that writers would use frames in the same style as
Gail suggested - Navigation panel on the left, main page on the right;
click on one, loads in the other and everything's sunny and the birds are
singing. Now along comes Mr Search Engine and reads all those 'body' pages
and offers them out to the big wide world. Somebody clicks on the result
and is delivered the body page, except now they can't go anywhere else
because none of the navigation was loaded; this ticks the reader off,
which in turn annoys the company who paid for it.
Printing can also *still* be a hassle, likewise bookmarking, and different
browsers treating frames in slightly different ways in terms of scrolling
and sizes.
So the developer had a couple of options 1) not use frames; 2) include a
link that would load up the page again with frames; 3) put all the same
links contained in the navigation bar in the main page.
Now mix in server-side #includes which allows you to keep your navigation
separate from the body, which is what a lot of frame were originally used
for and you get the prevailing myth that frames are best avoided.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
