Re: [NH] Use Of target="_blank"
- Ray Shapp wrote:
> BTW, Axel, you appear much younger than I had imaginedMy daughter keeps chiding me about that. It's more than thirty years old
> (assuming that is not a very old photo of you).
and I was younger then than she's now. It happens to be the only
of myself I ever liked.
A more current one is this Buddha
- Ray Shapp wrote:
>I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say, "hover-based pop-ups".Hover based it may be, but it isn't a popup ( a new window). It's a
>Please look at the NewEgg website <http://www.newegg.com/>. Just below their
>"Search" window, they have a yellow nav bar containing eleven categories of
>product beginning with, "COMPUTER HARDWARE". When I hover over that button,
>a two-column screen opens containing links for about two dozen
>sub-categories of computer hardware. Is this an example of a "hover-based
section of the same page that was previously hidden that is shown
when the link is hovered.
- Quoting Axel:
Firstly they are not even present and after allowing scripting
this is what I see:
That's odd! Here is what I see:
Notice they use a link title as well as hover pop-up. That's probably
unable to do so. I am using Firefox v3.6.16 under Win7 Pro SP1 64-bit.
Hover based it may be, but it isn't a popup
That makes sense. Otherwise my pop-up blocker would prevent me from seeing
the enhanced menu.
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@...> wrote:
> Ray Shapp wrote:
> > Is this an example of a "hover-based pop-up"?
> Yes, exactly.
> > Axel, are you saying that the subcategories of hardware
> > on the NewEgg site are illegible for you?
> I am. Firstly they are not even present and after allowing scripting
> this is what I see:
> > Do most of these hover-based pop-ups get
> Yes. Mostly it seems to be because many authors just don't know how to
> do it in pure CSS. On the other hand this example conforms to a
> useability rule of adding a slight delay. See:
> under the heading "Speed".
> So here script is good, but they ought to implement pure CSS first and
> have the script, when running, turn that off first and replace it by the
> better version. Never exclude visitors without script.
> By the way my sample design employs the CSS solution in the left menu
> and it shows the problems with that. Try moving down to a certain top
> menu entry from the top, you'll fail. I ought to write a script with
> delay for that, but then we all ought to do many things ...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Ray Shapp wrote:
> That's odd!Not odd at all, self-inflicted. In Firefox the setting is found in
The reason is that now all text on all pages is optimally legible
whatever bad contrast and noisy background a misguided designer-artist
may have chosen. As Jacob Nielsen keeps saying, people do not browse to
pages to admire their beauty but to find things and get things done as
quickly and as efficiently as possible. The default background of all
elements except <BODY> is transparent and if I forbid changing that,
that's what I'll get and hovering in front of other content won't work
Your mileage may vary, but whenever I turn colours back on for a page
like that one I tend to leave it on for a while and I find that very
soon the terrible abominations of taste I'm confronted with make me turn
it off very soon again. But be that as it may, it is a fully legal
setting that ALL browsers offer right there as a menu switch, so just
like script on and off, a minimum font size, and varying window size
conscientious designers have to be prepared for it and ensure their
designs basic useability. An ugly kludge is fine, it is self inflicted
by the visitor after all, but useable it has to be.
One possibility would be hover an image, one white pixel with width and
height in em, and hover the text in front of that. Contrary to script
there is no way, not even employing script, to find out what the
vistor's settings are so it's not possible to employ the cludge only
when needed. With bad luck your image has exactly the visitor's font
colour and will make things even worse.