Topic awaiting preservation: Opening website in pop-up, why?? (Page 1 of 1)

Do you know these websites which open in a pop-up window with a fixed size, no or less bars(status bar, button bar etc). i guess you do. Personaly i hate them, i think they are unecessary and i really don't like it when someone is messing with my (carefully tailored) browser window. Still these pop-up websites seem to be a very common phenomenon on the web. Maybe someone could enlighten me and tell me what the advantages are from pop-up websites when compared with normal websites.
or "Why should i want to wait for a website to open in a new window?"




------------------------------
Do something usefull: support Justice for Pat Richard

Rinswind 2th: My thinking behind it is it is for the same reasons people use tables - they are designing with print in mind rather than the web.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I can understand that a portfolio site is to be viewed in a certain context of colors and size ( thus the popups ) to not ruin or strengthen the colors, contrast, perspective, ... of the work of the artist. But I dislike popups as much as everybody here, that's why I prefer ( and also aesthetically speaking ) to see that kind of sites positionned in a div / frameset.

Emperor hit the nail on the head.

I like to think of people who design in such a way are control freaks, who do not actually understand the purpose of the web.

This reminds me of a comercial I recently saw. A little girl was sitting at her computer, and Ronald McDonald appeared on the screen, bounced all over the place and gave the girl a happy meal though the monitor. This comercial made me think of this type of control related web design and how much I don't like it. I would not want Ronald McDonald to control my web browser, or my computer to have the ability to jump all around it. Websites should not have the ability to do this. I want a web page to display information to me in a consistant fashion and I want to rely on the built in functionality of my chosen browser to be the beginning and end.

The website should not be in control, the user should be in control. The designer is allowed to give hints as to how the content can be best presented. And this is what CSS allows. But when all is said and done, I should be allowed to turn off their CSS and use my own, and the data will be present to me correctly, how I want to see it.

This is the real reason for the standards movement. It has nothing to do with new technology and easier to use methods, it is completely about making content as acessible as possible. This doesn't only mean that someone with a disability can use the page, it isn't only that I can view the page on my PDA and my cellphone. It is these things, but it is more about control, it is taking control from the designers and giving it to the users, to allow the users a choice when it comes to getting massive amounts of information from web pages. It is freeing the web from the ideas of a single person, and allowing everyone an equal voice in all aspects of all pages, of all the content. It is about making the web better and easier for everyone.

When the web gets bigger and better, you are going to find a large website that offers skins for all your favorite web pages. Just like you design your desktop and icons, you will be able to easily design webpages to meet your needs. It will allow you to open your browser and you will see the most recent posts from the Asylum next to google, and your favorite stock information from your broker. You will not need to design an elaborate scheme of server side code to create this page, you simple will download an tweak a CSS file and this will be done for you.

I have gotten way off topic like I have been doing lately, but it does tie back into the main topic. These fixed size, and browser hacking pages are not what the web is designed for. This is the bastardization that Microsoft and Netscape allowed to happen, though broken code and a lack of standards. The w3 and WaSP and all of the other standards advocates are trying to take back what was broken during the browser wars. The web is not about controling how your page displays, and to make your site look like the picture you have in your head. We have images and binary programs that allow you to completely control every aspect of presentation, we have printed materials and PDF files for this. The web is a fluid medium of communication that is much larger than a means of controlling presentation and of static advirtisments.

You can not grow the web and the internet when you attempt to control it. You can add value to it, but when you try and control it to suit your needs you subtract much from the whole.

You should not want to wait for a website to open in a new window. Instead you should complain, and make it known that you don't approve of those practices. This type of design was prevelant at one point and time when the web was an in its younger years, and was going through its rebelious stage. It is now time for it to be an adult and that involves all of us as designers to grow up with it.

Web design is not easy. It is hard work it requires time and effort to be done correctly, and to provide less than that works to destroy what makes the web great, and that is that anyone anywhere can access it, and be able to find the information that they are seeking.

-Dan-

That was well said, Mage. I agree with you. Hate of Pop-up windows is the main reason why I much prefer Mozilla Firefox.

cell 799

Some interesting things were said along these lines here (not by me though ):
http://development.gurusnetwork.com/discussion/thread/1899/

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

BTW, the rant about print design reminds me when my previous company had a big contract to do the site of a web-tv. The managers wanted to have a great design and asked the Art Director of a print design ad company we knew well to do that "great" design. The guy came up with 2 images in 1200x1200 with gradients everywhere though he knew we couldn't use Flash, so he should have known that gradients could be problematic in term of file size and image quality.

WarMage:

quote:

---

When the web gets bigger and better, you are going to find a large website that offers skins for all your favorite web pages. Just like you design your desktop and icons, you will be able to easily design webpages to meet your needs. It will allow you to open your browser and you will see the most recent posts from the Asylum next to google, and your favorite stock information from your broker. You will not need to design an elaborate scheme of server side code to create this page, you simple will download an tweak a CSS file and this will be done for you.

---

The future is now ( well almost ). With RSS Reader Panel for Mozilla FireFox anybody can skin the simple chunks of XHTML generated from your favorite RSS feeds. The author of this plugin did a little repository of the skins avaible including my "Cholorophyl" theme



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 03-24-2004).]

well i have to say this is really interesting, i'm a photographer at heart but i'm starting to investigate putting my own website together, the idea that maybe i shouldn't want to present my information in such a perscribed and ridgid way as is inherant in print design intruiges me somewhat.

Is it possible to write a totally user configurable website?

back on topic yeah i hate popups too, firefox is good for that i must say.

Ok, rather than beat around the bush, someone has to call a duck a duck.

PORN SITES use multiple popups to grab hits.
When you go to a PORN SITE sometimes multiple sites popup all over.
Some of the more nazi ones will explode 10 or more.
This is because they get hit credits. Not money as such, but things like ranking
and mutualy redirected traffic.
The whole Porn site economy is fascinating and actually quite profitable
if you are prepared to put in 7-12 hours a day attracting traffic.
Read a fascinating article about Porn site economy and engineering once on Slashdot.

Not that I nor any of you gentelmen on this fine site would ever sink to such
gutteral endevours. Porn may make 30% of net traffic but its those pleabians out there, not us.




---
"The future is not written in stone.
It is written day by day,
What are you writing today?"
http://wulfius-khan.deviantart.com/
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/wulfius/

The origional post was not directed towards popup advertising, but towards the use of the popup site, http://www.pixelflo.com is an example of this. I am not wanting to pick on DG for this, because we have all created sites like this (allthough not as cool as pixel flo) at one point in time.

I don't believe that any of the designers who have been around for a good deal of time can claim that they have not used the bastardizations that the browser wars produced. It was cool and hip and new. The web was young and didn't have its identity as a mamoth medium for communications set down by the advance of technologies such as handhelds and PDA's. The web wasn't treated as a standard body of information which should be accessible to all, it was "the new cool thing" and everyone was trying to make it cool.

So I am not trying to pick on DG for the design, I am trying to pick on everyone for their designs, DG's pixelflo just happened to be one of those cool sites that stuck in my mind.

-Dan-

Do you think a lot of/most people think this way about pop ups Rinswind 2th?
This is something I had not considered before. On my site in the photography section, I have had each gallery open in a new page, because I thought users would prefer it that way. I have also started to do this with the photoshop pong matches I have had in the past, and feature on the site.
If it really is that distressing for visitors I think I'll have to change it.

:::tao:::

Taobaybee: If tend to think that if the user wants to open a link in a new page/tab s/he can Shift+click or Ctrl+click or use the contextual menu to do so. When I'm browsing a portfolio I click like crazy to open all the most teasing thumbnails in new tabs, which is impossible if the author ofthe site hijacked the links with a name popup.

Exactly. Don't make the choice for the user. Let the user make the choice. If I want the links to open in a new windows I will open them in a new window. Most of the time I do not want this at all, actually, I never want this. If I am going to open a page and keep the origional it will in a new tab, not in a popped window.

I don't want to have to click between different windows, that is annoying.

-Dan-

Crazy Browser is a nifty shell for IE. BLocks all pop ups, ( I have to switch browsers when I go to pixelflo)uses tabs, and has some other features IE should have always had.

I haven`t seen a pop up in over a year. Or a site that uses them.

I don't mind them a bit ("designer" popups). I find the control freak argument ironic as well

The web isn't what any one person or group says it is, at least not yet, and I like it like that. Both sides of the 'argument' raise points to be considered and respected. I just don't get my panties in a twist over this issue.

[edit] - now popup blockers, those suck, don't get me started



[This message has been edited by JKMabry (edited 03-24-2004).]

The discussion becomes more interesting, but i still i don't know what the advantages are from opening an web page/site in a pop-up.
Tao you seem to use this technique, because you thought visitors would like it that way, why do you think visitors would like it? You asked me if i think more people have problems with it, the answer is clear: yes.
I looked at you site and went to the images section. The Sefton park section is exactly what i was talking about.
A new window pops-up, fills my whole screen (1024*768) there are no browser controls whatsoever, i can not bookmark it directly nor by copying the adres to the bookmark folder. On the page itself there is no navigation, the only thing left to do is close the window or to resize it. At least some basic navigation (home, back, next, section(photo's) would be nice. Thank god the pics are nice to look at

And for all others joining in: Yes pop-ups are evil, but sometimes needed, don't turn this thread in to an "I am against pop-ups too" rant fest. The question is:
"What are/were the advantages from opening an website in a new pop-up window?"


------------------------------
Do something usefull: support Justice for Pat Richard

IMO, http://www.pixelflo.com is a damn spiffy site, and can justify using a fixed pop-up window to display what it does. I think the effect of the site would of been totatly lost, if not undooable if designed around a fluid-CSS-based type of design. That page doesnt seem to be geared towards displaying information, but displaying creativity. I dont think using the "He's designing for print" argument would do much good on a site like that .

I agree, if the primary purpose of a website is to display information / etc, then going for the "Ok, you must use a ##x## window, with my colors, and no scroll bars, and and and", and I agree, that is a PITA, and shouldnt really be done. If SlashDot did what pixelflo did, I'd never go there.

Like most things (tables, frames, iframes, etc), pop-ups like that have their time and place in which they are actually usefull / benificial to the layout of a website. Its a matter of knowing when/why to use them, and when going another route is the better options

Rinswind:

quote:

---

The discussion becomes more interesting, but i still i don't know what the advantages are from opening an web page/site in a pop-up.

---

Its about control - Tao seems to do it so that the browser isn't cluttered with controls and a lot of other people do it so they can control the actual dimensions.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

I have found this discussion to be most informative. Why did I design the photo galleries that way? Well I think there were/are a number of reasons. I am still new to this so I have been experimenting. At the time I used IE exclusively, and being on a 56k dialup, sometimes it would take an age for a page full of images to load. So I would always open an image heavy page in a new window, so I could still be doing something else while waiting for it to load.
I also like the look of an image in it's own correctly sized window, if the image was say, 600x400 then I'd put it in a window of that size without all the ugly empty space around it. My thinking there being, if I have spent a long time trying to get the image looking the way I liked, I should also try to present it in the way I feel looks better.
Heh, I have just re-read my post so far and it almost sounds like I had a definite plan when I was doing my image galleries. The truth is, it is more of a "hodge podge" of ideas lashed together, waiting for that mythical someday when I settle on a definite style.
I think this discussion is great for re-evaluating initial ideas on what you want your website to do and how it will be received.

:::tao:::

Tao, the idea behind the reason that you make the choice of spawning a new windows is correct all the way down the line, and you did have a plan. However, no matter how good your plan is there will always be someone who wants it different. The lack of imposed control and the standards allow you to appease everyone involved, and not leave out even the minority of those who think completely different, and many times in completely assinie ways.

I am sure we all know that one person that no matter how many times you show then the neet cool quick new way to do things that they always revert to the old ugly stupid slow way, it is for those people that the standards make things nicer. It also allows you to remove some of the heat from yourself, if those people don't like it they can easily do it their own way.

It is all a learning process, and the more we share our own ideas the more we will learn how it all works. The problem with this discussion is that it reliese on lots of people talking and descenting and reevaluating. The issue of web site usability and GUI issues has not been studied enough by any stretch of imagination. We need to think about it a whole lot more. Right now further abstraction on the separation of design from content feels correct. In time I might be proved really wrong, but unless I am told I will never know.

-Dan-

quote:

---

This is the real reason for the standards movement.

---

Actually, standards and accessibility are complete separate issues. That's an important distinction as just having a standards compliant page doesn't mean your page will automatically be accessible. They really are very separate issues and should be addressed as such. Something many of us probably don't currently do. I know I didn?t for the longest time, assuming any XHTML & CSS based page I made would be accessible. But I now realise that most of them probably weren't.

I'd like to hope everyone here has read through the W3Cs Web Accessibility Initiative pages. Espically this checklist page, which you kinda have to abide by for your website to avoid possible legal action from various groups.

Don't think legal action isn't likely to happen either. The makers of the Sydney 2000 Olympics website lost an AU $20,000 law suit to a blind man who couldn't navigate their page in order to book tickets for an event. Mainly because they simply refused to make the required changes the court ordered them to make to the website, which probably would have cost them more than 20 large to fix (probably due to poor site managament on a whole. I doubt it would have taken more than that ammount to make the pages correctly in the first place), but there are enough similar legal cases out there that have been won for anyone to potentially get hammered by this. Given that standards and browsers supporting them have improved greatly since 2000, I'd say the risk of not having an accessible site is higher than ever.

Unfortunately for us, they don't specify too much about pop-ups that remove browser control, but they do have one priority 2 (only priority 1 is necessary but it's not to difficult that satisfy all the to priority 2 issues, which the majority should aim for IMO) addressed here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-avoid-pop-ups

But it is there, in plain as day text, that using popups is not a recommended practice.

Edit: I fuxed the UBB code again...

[This message has been edited by Cameron (edited 03-25-2004).]

Actually, if you decide to open a link of a product description in its own window it will look funky to have a small snippet of info on a full page. What is wrong with opening a smaller page not meant for navigation? it's just informational.

Of course if it's that hard to navigate the cursor across the expanse of the screen and click the product description window closed..., perhaps a smaller monitor is needed.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

UnknownComic: You know, the clients are not obliged to load a whole page or a open a popup to show a blurb of infos. The web devs. can show/hide/load a the content of a DIV easily via CSS and/or JavaScript.

That is the current state of things right now. There are so many things that we are used to doing, such as opening a popup to show small snippets of information, when there are other posabilities available. The problem is, we have to figure out and test these new ways of doing things. And then we have to determine if they are even the correct method.

Dan
CodeTown.org

CSS?

It's neat and all... But I prefer foo.gifs for my layout manipulation... DOH!

[snicker]

Does CSS allow for a resizing of an image and adding the info directly on the current page?

Unfortunately I myself am just getting the hang of HTML and Javascript. And, I would wager that a large segment of the web authoring community is still using blank gif's, javascript, and tables to make their pages...

Someone want to point out some good CSS tutorials?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...

quote:

---

I would wager that a large segment of the web authoring community is still using blank gif's, javascript, and tables to make their pages

---

Actually, I'd wager that majority of the "web authoring community", are using CSS & proper XHTML by now. The majority of the web is still mostly old table hacked HTML, but if you consider this site to represent a mini demographic of the greater web authoring community then most of us are up to par.

Even if you look at the latest version of Macromedia Dreamweaver to represent the views of the greater web building community, you can clearly see the shift towards supporting standards. If macromedia does one thing well, it's listening to their customer?s suggestions for future product releases. If they loaded Dreamweaver and a bunch of their other authoring tools with standards support in mind, then you could probably surmise that the majority of their customers were asking for it.

Educational institutions have also been teaching standards base web authoring for some years now. If they still aren't then I fear their students are in for a shock when they realise they have to relearn everything before anyone will even give their resume/portfolio a second glance.


The reasons for using web standards?

Well, there are millions really. Accessibility is but one of them. For me, the biggest reason is that it simply makes everything easier and you have more control over what you design. Tables worked when there was no other solution, but CSS offers so much more. It's easier to design with and easier to update and maintain. Why fight it?

I can only assume it's the age old "fear anything different" syndrome. I did it myself way back when and I butted heads on here with twitch about it several times, but his subtle way with words soon made me see things differently. =)

If you want to learn about web standards, www.w3.org is the source. But it's not an easily digestible one and the sheer volumes of content can be rather overwhelming if you don't really know what you're looking for. Sites like www.webstandards.org and www.alistapart.com do a great job of carrying the flag down to us simpler folk and explaining things in small and tasty portions. The www.w3schools.com site also makes for a good plain English reference on many different web standards, but the writing is a tad dry compared to the like of a-list-apart or digital-web magazine.

There is also a huge conduit of information flowing through the weblogs. Given that the majority of weblogs are still very much focused on web standards and web technologies, the amount of information being pumped out by the weblogging community is almost dizzying. Looking at the amount of results returned for a simple google search on "web standards" is enough to make any researcher turn pale.

Edit:

quote:

---

The problem is, we have to figure out and test these new ways of doing things. And then we have to determine if they are even the correct method.

---

Yes, this is a problem. However, the web is the ideal environment to be finding such solutions. I'd even go as far as o say that the web development community have also found solutions to many of these problems, but this creates another problem. Who's writing them down? Who's recording all of these "best practices" that have resulted from the cooperative research and testing from such varied authors?

Weblogs can't sustain any real longevity of information for the masses with their inherently temporal formats and sites like www.alistapart.com still act more like a magazine than a technical reference. Sites like www.w3schools.com aren't in-depth enough to cover the detail required and www.w3.org tells you what you shouldn't do with the technology, but doesn't really offer any input on the best solutions for how you should.

So we continue to stumble about and fall back on search engines to help us find the best way solve our problems. Which has been working for quite a while, but will this still be the best way to find information about our non technical issues with web design in 3-5 years from now?

Perhaps it would be nice to have a movement dedicated to such issues, but one that takes a slightly more formal and academically structured approach?. perhaps?.

Maybe. Maybe not. I could see something like that being a complete nightmare to maintain.

Actually, I?m not really sure something like that is needed. The W3C supported by magazines and other journal like publications as well as a strong yet supportive community should be enough, as these kind of issues are present it pretty much every field of practice.

Ok, now I?m just rambling.... shutting up.

[This message has been edited by Cameron (edited 03-26-2004).]

It is good thinking about recording all of that stuff. I think that the act of recording it is in itself a means of making money. You write it all down, package it, bind it and sell it.

You don't have to, but you could. Zeldman's recent book is one such project on a limited scale. It was great, and taught me a lot, even if it is only the basics.

If you have the time and the effort to write it all down and to keep track of it, I am sure you can turn it into something great.

Dan
CodeTown.org

Books! How brain dead can I get...

I knew I was forgetting something. How's that for an example for not being able to see the forest for the trees. But I'm in no position to be writing a book of any kind. Might not be a bad idea for a collobrative GN effort to help support the site. You could get members to write a chapter each or something. Actually, you could extropolate a book and a half from the tutorials you already have on as is.

Edit: Hey, nice domain you got there. Haven't seen it before, did you only register that recently?

[This message has been edited by Cameron (edited 03-26-2004).]

Yeah that is brand new, just got it a few weeks ago, and just fixed my DNS problems. I am hosting everything off my home computer, so it took a bit figuring out how to set up all the services, like the DNS and the email. But it should be working fine now. The next step is to actually make the website do something other than sit there, and tell people nothing.

Dan
CodeTown.org

Cam:

quote:

---

Books! How brain dead can I get...

I knew I was forgetting something. How's that for an example for not being able to see the forest for the trees. But I'm in no position to be writing a book of any kind. Might not be a bad idea for a collobrative GN effort to help support the site. You could get members to write a chapter each or something. Actually, you could extropolate a book and a half from the tutorials you already have on as is.

---

We have discussed this before and I'd certainly be interested in a series of shorter (than you average tech book anyway) books delivered via PDF and print on demand. Done that way you could something indepth and tightly focused but also keep them updated (rather than different editions - the flexibility would allow you to do the books in versions).

I know a number of people here have books in them (probably not literally expect for the inmate in cell 549 East Wing) and this would be a good way of tapping into that (as well as oepning thigs up to people who feel they have a few hundred pages in them on a specific topic they are expert at). So rather than have a great slab on PHP you could get PHP and MySQL, PHP and XML, PHP and GD, etc. and you can then keep the books, small(ish) and more modular without dumbing them down.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

Actually, I'd wager that majority of the "web authoring community", are using CSS & proper XHTML by now.

---

That is precisely why I used " a large segment ". I did not want to use statistics that had no actual authenticity.

What are these "book" things you speak of?

I would be interested in looking at such a quaint outdated artifact. Books... hmmm, I wonder...

______________
Is This Thing On?

Bleah...