Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Pop-up Ads
bje2 writes "CNet has a disconcerting story about a new generation of pop-up ads that use a "kick through" technique such that you don't even need to click on the pop-up ad anymore, you just need to mouse over it...wow, can they make our web surfing experience any worse?"
I can imagine this'll cause a problem for all us pr0n freaks out there who get a shitload of banners everytime we click on anything remotely about naked women/men/sheep/cowboyneal :-P
In many israelian sites, there are flash commercials that cover the contents, and are very hard to close.
You surf peacefully, and suddenly the screen is filled with lottery ad and the computer shouts " 50 millions!!! " at you.
There are other things, like a anti-virus ad that looks like the computer has been compromised, etc, which are just plain agressive.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Ran into one of these the other day (will try to find again and post URL). It at least stated what would happen when i moused over it. Popped up again when I went to close the danged thing too!
Marketing:Invading your personal space every chance we get!
Great just what everyone always didn't want for christmas :/
maybe i missed something, but how will this increase revenue for the advertising companies?
so their websites get more hits. but since they are hits that are basically forced, or unaware hits, how will this increase sales for the product being advertised?
No sooner does someone say that then, inevitably, they make it worse....one possible scenario, well, maybe someday not only will it kick youthrough the ad, but it will also be some flash based thing that, until its run its course, you cannot close without closing your browser. How's that for worse?
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Use Mozilla or Phoenix or Netscape 7.1 and turn them off. Probolem solved!
my hosts file is already several KB long. Another entry is added everytime an advertiser annoys me. Like Robofind. Soon to be Orbitz, I'm sure.
Yes, I use mozilla a lot, but I still need IE for some sites.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
- use a quality browser : konqueror, mozilla, opera, phoenix block popups. The three latter are available on nearly any OS
- surf to quality websites only : google, nerd sites, tgp galeries, nearly any type of website has a version that respects the customers.
Problem solvedI seem to recall being subjected to mouse-over pop-ups a while ago, as well as on-load and on-close popups. Is this actually a new thing, or is the article just not up to date on how the web works?
they have ads that just pop up on your screen no matter what you do. Its quite frustrating. I even have a pretty kick arse pop up killer from meaya.
Pop-ups block YOU!
word: no java
types of Ads and know the server they are originating from? Just curious would like to see one. I'm guessing it uses either javascript or flash?
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
http://www.proxomitron.org/
this thing rocks
"wow, can they make our web surfing experience any worse?"
Yup, publish our surfing behaviour on the internet...
This all sounds like nice possibilities for Mozilla (andother alternative browsers) to block those annoying ads in their default setup. Maybe M$ Internet Explorer might catch up one day, but I'm not waiting for that! ;-p
Pop-ups are by far the single most annoying thing on the web. I'd say that by this trend, we're only a step away from the pop-up ad that automatically installs GATOR and whatnot just by sitting at a keyboard.
What is disconcerning about these ads that it's the same thing as if you were watching TV, and there was a product on the screen. By glancing at the product, your channel is changed to an Infomercial about that product. If it's anything like other ads, changing back to your channel will give you 4 PIP windows that support that product and other products by that company.
I thought it was bad enough when I saw the anti-pop scripting that existed on a site I went to. I still use my trusty Pop-UP Killer (may it rest in peace), and was rather annoyed to be denied access to a site based on my software choice.
I am seriously starting to wonder about the legality of pop-up ads and internet spyware. I don't have a problem with things that function like a TV commericial (banner ads, or Advertisement and Click-to-continue at Gamespy), but I despise it when someone else tries to determine what I should look at, and hate it even more when someone decides to put something I didn't authorize on my system.
I say we gather up all these pop-up authors in room. Tie them all together, and make them run Windows Me on 386s. After that, we'll just send them to Equitorial Guinea to be humanitarian workers.
If the pop-ups don't show up in the first place, you don't have to worry about any mousing over them.
Gotta love modern browsers. Oh, IE doesn't do that without the use of additional tools? Huh.
It's hard enough to make a screen reader
work satisfactorily if your need one now;
just wait until the screens change (new
pop-up windows at the hover of a mouse).
I really think this comprises harass-
ment to PWD's.
I tried the popup in question on espn.com and mouseovering took me nowhere...
Anyone with more success?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Go to espn to see this thing in action. I don't think this form of advertising is much worse than regular pop-ups, just slightly more annoying. I do wonder how advertising agencies will distinguish between eyeballs and click-throughs... since many people will click-through accidently on these things.
A favorite quote from the article: "There's an enormous segment of the population that are appreciating these ads". Eh, name one!
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
to a pop up free web experience.. havent you learned that yet. This is capitalism damnit... if we cant force feed you advertising in your dreams, pumped directly into your brain then poor little children in some far off land will starve.. wont someone please think of the children.
But seriously, I dont think they've figured out that it wont likely work, and no I'm sure they think we DONT have the right to a pop-up free web experience. The problem with this is of course that its generally so easy to ignore other types of ads ( I can avoid pop-ups too - my alt-f4 trigger finger is faster than you advertising demons ). But thats what they dont get. The web is not a broadcast medium but a narrow cast medium so you cant force feed people adverts in the way you can on TV. But then again we already know they're idiots who dont get it. The only way ads work on the net really is if people wish to see then, or take notice. Slashdots ads work fine.. I notice them everyday and even click once in a while to follow up on some of them but pop-ups will only piss people off more than they do know and if anything engender ill will towards said advertiser.
It could be worse... They could make it so that your browser crashed whenever you went to certain webpa...
Oh wait. They already do that.
Nevermind.
Bowie J. Poag
Perhaps I'm not the only one that is thinking that they should have put a couple of restrictions when they introduced commercialism on the internet.
And I swear I'll break the fingers of anyone who makes that 'In soviet Russia....' joke.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This has started with things like disabling the blink tag and having pop-up blockers, and now we see that browsers should not allow certain actions to be triggered simply by a mouseover, and so on. Remember things like this the next time you see someone on bugzilla commenting about how the browser has to respect command X because it's in the standard!
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
Look... I just invented a new tool called the wheel! Oh, wait....
--Chemguru
Ok, I see alot of "oh just use Mozilla or Opera or Pheonix". Well, what do you suggest I do when I want to access my bank account (www.netbank.com) and cannot because they have problems with Mozilla not always working right so just decided to disable it entirely? What about the flash-enabled pages I want to visit that, in IE work fine, but in Mozilla hang with a persistent "Loading...." screen? Or the plethora of other sites that don't work right?
Now I am not saying it's Mozillas fault, I'm sure alot of the offbeat layout problems are actually the designers screw up, but that doesn't change the fact that I cannot view the site. If adhering solidly to standardsmeans you cannot view more than just a few websites, then I guess I will have to use that "crappy" IE6. Another thing, I don't appreciate a piece of software that, after taking as long as it did to be released, makes my PC respond like a PII 400Mhz with PC66 RAM. God help you if you minimize Moz for awhile and do other things, you'd think it died when you restored the window! No other browser acts like that.
My point is, lets come up with solutions to this problem that are a bit more practical than "only use these browsers to view only these sites". Because that is NO solution.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Maybe amazon should try and patent this type of thing, popup a window, when you mouse over it automatically purchase the book! Imagine the convenience, you no longer will have to even use the energy required to punch a single button, everything is taken care for you. And the best part is you don't even have to think about the purchase, the've already done it for you! Imagine getting the hottest book sells in the coutry delivered right to your door!
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Something similar happened to me the other day, I was browsing away and something popped up, it was one of those annoying "Do you want to install this" windows in IE. Of course by an extreme and infuriating coincidence the "Yes" button was right over the link I was trying to click.
After that even though I disabled the bar that it had installed Explorer was crashing under xp and I couldn't browse anything, took me a good amount of wasted time trying to track it down and get rid of it.
You mean right here, in Slashdot ? There will be Visual.NET pop-up ads ?
Or maybe it's I haven't BT.
And that's why you should boycott companies that force you to visit theyre sites. If I want to buy something from them, I'll find them don't worry.
I fought the corporate America, and the corporate America bought the law.
How apt. Getting hit by all those popups can be very much like getting caught in a snowball fight.
Sure it's quite a harsh move (can we call it a "feature" ??), but I don't think it really matters. Just use a filtering proxy like Privoxy or Junkbuster and regexp out the involved events :)
In addition, there's a good chance that this will piss off even Joe L. User sooner or later...
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
The heck with ignoring them! Most companies pay to advertise and that payment is oft-times based on CLICK-THRU!! They put on the blindfold and walked right up to the wall, i say we PULL THE TRIGGER! Everytime you find one of the mouse-pop URL, give it to all your friends and spend a couple of minutes just reloading and mousing over and closing after 30 seconds. O*bitz and anyone else foolish enough to do this will soon be BANKRUPT! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
I like to think of it like a really complicated video game.
1) Use Alt+Tab to switch to the offending window without actually bringing it up. Then, quickly let go and hit Alt+F4 to close the window.
2) Get Pop-Up Stopper. It's free & this article doesn't even mention whether pop-up blockers are effective against it, but I assume they are.
3) ????
4) Profit.
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
Give this one a try.
simple javascript, surprised no one has thought of this before.
There are a few websites that use known security holes to install gator and other spyware. And before you say "patch your browser", check out http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ for a list of known holes with no patch (short of 98lite). And before you say that gator has added their own EULA screen to prevent that, remember that it can easily be bypassed by just about anyone who did game cracks back in the 80's when codewheels and manual checks were common.
There's some pop-up ads I only find mildly annoying; for example, the occasional Geocities pop-up. However, there are a lot more vicious ones out there. I experienced one that, when Xed out or Alt-F4ed, opened a new pop-up, and when the new one was closed, it popped the old one back up. Suffice it to say, I was happy at that moment for XP's 'Close Group' feature. But just mousing over without any warning doesn't seem as malicious as recursive pop-ups, unless they're combined to create a greater evil.
Weeeeee. We're in Surfin' Heaven! Nothin' like a B&W mono-spaced equally-formatted no-graphics page to inspire me...
Ok, maybe going a little too far... but these new methods of introducing dynamic content to an otherwise static medium actually CAN be useful, in the right hands.
In fact, all of them were developed with good intentions, and all can be used with purpose - it's just the few sockcuckers out there who take advantage of them that ruin it for the rest of us.
Some troll exploited a bug on slashdot a few months ago and created a goatse.cx 'kick-through'
It was something like this
<p > onmouseover="alert('You are a loser');this.href='http://www.goatse.cx'">Large chunk of text to make sure you get kicked through!</p>
That troll was a classic!
Maybe its time to post the principles' info from both the discount travel retailer quoted in the article, including the guy in charge of marketing, and of the interactive ad agency that came up with this ad for the discount travel retailer, and that is enabling this crap?
How does that go again? Get name, address, phone numbers, email addresses from publicly available information sites, and post here for the spambots to pick up?
The travel site principles should be easy to get. The ad agency may be harder. But if they're going to be annoying a huge segment of 'net users, perhaps they should get a taste?
If more people contacted the websites that are running the really intrusive adverts, telling them why the ads are so annoying, and asking them to reconsider, then we'd stand a better chance of seeing the back of them.
As it is, we seem to be locked into an Arms Race of sorts - ad companies devise new ad format, ad blockers move to block them, repeat ad nauseum... Just blocking the ads will only attract the attention of the ad company, not the owner of the site displaying the ads.
-MT.
I found my cable modem has this long black thing plugged into it, and if I pull it out it completely and utterly cuts off all internet advertising... it's quite amazing.
Internet is a wonderful media, used right. It *could* also be a wonderful media for the advertising business.
t egies.
The reason the ads get larger and more annoying, is that noone clicks on them - because no one WANTS those ads. This is *not* going to change by making them more annoying, only the oppsosite.
No, the advertising business does *not* understand Internet. Had they done that, they would have done a lot more targeted advertising, to people who WANTED it, and perhaps even used some effort to build up interesting web-sites related to the field they operated in.
Take, for example, a sports chain. Would it be as annoying if a sports chain co-financed a sports news site, or an outdoor activities site? There could be a prominent, non-intrusive link on the front page, pointing to "shop". This is only one example of things that would be less intrusive but perhaps more effective.
Instead of buying ads, buy a part of a well-used website, make the commercial section well accessible from the front page, but non-intrusive unless you REALLY want to see it.
Another thing they could do, once having bought access to an internet site, is participate in talkback fora. Teach a person that task, and make him inform about general topics AND advice about products. What makes me like and want to buy from a shop, is *service*, *well-informed personell* and willingness to help.
In other words - contribute to the community, make your name known through *that*, and I think one would benefit in the long run.
There might be better ways than my examples, they're just examples of ways *I* think are better than push-your-ads-in-the-face-of-too-many-people-stra
But no, the advertising business hasn't understood the media at all. It's all about pushing annoying ads in the face of unwilling customers, in the hope of catching *one* willing customer more.
Doesn't some do that already? I recall cjb.net hosted sites doing this. Not because the hosted sites are evil of course, but because cjb.net adds some code to all of them.
In IE, you're asked if you wish to install a spyware (through a rather cryptic IE dialog about certificates for novice users) and then given the options OK and Cancel. I wonder how many "amateur surfers" click OK there.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Ask not how they can worsen our web-surfing, but how we can fight them back! They are stamping over our right to the "pursuit of happiness", not to mention privacy issues. Last I checked, newspapers don't contain popup ads (popup books are just scary!)... There must be something we can do. Hire a good cyberlawyer. :-)
The more annoying the advertisement, the more people that will try to find a way to block it. I'm sure with a little programming, it won't be a problem to do so...and it may not even need that.
I sit here and look at the ads on Slashdot while I'm typing away...I don't look for long and I'm not interested in what I've seen so far but the key part is that I am looking at them. If the ad popped up in my face or made me click links, etc I would immediately find a way to stop it and ignore whatever it says because I'm too irritated to care.
Bandwidth is expensive. If we were to take 20K slashdot users and have them try and go through the website as much as possible we could eat up thier bandwidth. Thereforth costing them more money without actually buying anything.
.jpg x1000 without it actually caching on my machine. though a jpg would only be 50K I am looking at it along the lines 50Megs but if I get some program that could do that on 10 machines at work have them eat up 500megs of bandwidth a hour would equal what 12gigs a day. 360gigs a month. If I can get them to download a larger gif perhaps I could reach 500gigs a month. Thats gotta cost them some money. Perhaps make them go out of business so thier add wont popup anymore.
I personally have been boycotting any company that uses a popup ad that I have run across. It doesnt appear to be doing much. But a boycott is something I can do forever while trying to get others to do the same.
though using up thier bandwidth sounds nice. theres gotta be a way to call for the download of a single
But that would be wrong too.
so boycotting it will have to be.
Ignore what I just wrote. And do not use it for evil purposes.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
How is this worse than a popup ad that doesn't require you to do anything at all? Am I missing something?
...ad banners CHASE your mouse pointer!
It's the same numbers game that the SPAM mongers are playing.
Ie, if you can get even one half of one percent to buy something, with over 1 million people hitting your site, you still get 5000 customers. If each of those customers buy just one thing, the company is making money off of their "efforts".
Those who don't like it and don't buy are considered to not have wanted to buy in the first place.
The same is true of passing out flyers, sending spam emails, or going door-to-door. A numbers game.
Winged Power Photography
Why don't we use the power of Slashdot? Suppose all of us made a perfectly legit phone call to 888-656-4546, the contact number on the Orbitz site, and told them, "I just want to let your company know as long as you use pop-up ads, especially with kick-through, I will go to your competitor's site instead."
It's kind of like "Alice's Restaurant." If one of us does it, they'll think s/he's nuts and ignore them. If two of us do it....and so on. If several thousand people called them and voiced perfectly legit complaints about their method of advertising, and this went on to the tune of several thousand calls a day for a week or more, the costs would ad up and they just might feel they need to change their ways. It's a variation on some of the passive resistance tactics used in the South in the Civil Rights Movement.
Another possibility -- and IANAL, but I might be checking with a friend who is, would be to see if you can legitimately "sell" space and use of your computer. Specify that any banner ads are acceptable, but you are charging a company a fee of $100 per ad for each window that they open up on your computer without your requesting that window. Say you don't want their product, but you are offering them the chance to test their software and you will report all successful events to them when you bill them.
This is similar to the tactic a private citizen's group (I think they're called Private Citizen) has used to get many of their members off telemarking lists. They tell the marketers they may not call their list of numbers because their members don't want to buy their product. Then they make an offer for the company to test their telemarking system by calling their members, and the rate per test is $100 or more per instance. They also specify all a company has to do to accept this offer is to call their members. This has stood up in court!
Anyway, there's two suggestions. I think the first, if organized, like what people are doing to Ralsky for his spam, would have SOME kind of effect on Orbitz. I don't even know if the second one can be done legally.
Really? Care to point out a single constructive use of popups? (If I really want to open a link in a new window, I middle click it, period.) What about <blink>?
The web was designed for user control of presentation. Technologies that attempt to subvert this paradigm are *evil*. If you've got a good browser, you can only take what's good and throw out the rest (For example, in mozilla you can enable javascript but prevent javascript from opening popups). If you haven't got a good browser, switch.
or maybe it was me so I'll try again.
for (i=0, i<1000, i++)
wget someserver/somefolder/whatever.jpg > null
or something like that.
>
I had to switch to IE to see what the hell the parent post was talking about.
In Konquerer with Java disabled the demonstration of the abuse never occured and just left me staring in puzzlement at the page.
KFG
Not only would the repeated downloading eat up your own bandwidth too, but it would congest the network for others around the world. A better system would be to have your client download the ad reeeeeeaaaaaalllllyyy sssssssssllllllllloooooooowwwwwwwlllllyyyy. That way, you tie up the server for a minute say, for each connection request. This is bandwidth friendly and blocks only the advertized server from servicing other customers in the time you download.
Ok, so tell me HOW. I can't noddle it out.
One of the funniest ATHF episodes EVAR.
http://www.yzzerdd.com/
weren't for nothing! I can take out popups at 30 per second, and stop the Windows from spreading!
This is the popup blocker i'm using.. and I love the rest of his site (enough that i took the time to share it with you) ;-)
k /p ow.htm
http://www.analogx.com/contents/download/networ
an Adam Sandler character, "Who are the marketing geniuses who came up with this one!"
not click-throughs, but mouse-over-throughs.
Click-through indicates interest on the part of the user. It lets advertisers engage with people who are interested while avoiding annoying potential future customers. Mouse-over does not indicate interest, so it's no better than simply popping up windows randomly, and advertisers can do that already.
I develop apps for handheld devices (PDA's and phones), and this stuff is anathema to us. There isn't the screen real estate to show these fancy new fangled "windows", so everything appears in the foreground. Consequently, our browser pathologically blocks anything that might interrupt the user.
As handhelds become more popular for browsing (and it is doable even on teeny screens with the right display paradigms) this is going to become a bigger issue. If you think popups are bad on your 1600x1200 monitor, try dealing with them on a sub 320x240 screen. Yuk.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You forgot something from your list:
5) ???
6) Profit!
Sorry, I had to.
http://www.panicware.com
just download popupstopper and be done with it. there's really no excues not to.
I guess since C|Net reports this it is considered news. However, this technique has existed since ages
(in internet time, approx 4 years realtime).
When it first came out some people actually implemented websites using the onmouseover() event, but soon they figured out it was too annyoing.
Well... they're back.
seems fair to me.
Machine9dotNet
What is the best way to push product on the web and, in doing so, support websites?
/.ers, and Joe SixPack feel that web ads are craptacular. Can anything be done to make web-based ads more palatable?
-Spam is obtrusive and insanely bandwidth intensive.
-Pop-up and pop-under ads are spawned by Satan.
-The next-gen pop-ups are better to me (ie. Flash-based spiders crawling across the page before it can be read), but people still hate them.
-Google-style text ads only seem to work on Google
Marketroids,
Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid. --John Wayne
One would figure that most of these big-time players (who can afford to do something different than the small porn-sites popping up every day) would do it, if they want to keep the surfers there. Yet most of the time, the same annoying pop-up comes up each time I click on a link (e.g. next page).
One should think that these people would be smart enough to understand that after having seen the same lotto ad 5 times in a minute, and not even once clicked on it, that I don't care much for lotto. But no! The website in question will continually annoy me with the same intrusive add, time after time, with the only reasonable conclusion that I will leave the site, and surf somewhere else. Thus the company looses one potential web-surfer and ad-revenue income.
Damn it! Why are they so stupid? This is what cookies are for! They should track my browsing behaviour, find out what I'm interested in, and serve me those kinds of ads. At the very least, they should rotate the ads. And once they have my cookie, they should limit the number of times they will show me the same ad in a given period.
There is a reason that web-advertisements are not effective! Even when they have all the tools they need to track my browsing behaviour, profile my browsing habits, check which ads I click on, etc, they still keep pestering me with the same ad for the same product ten times in a minute! Even when they know the only outcome of this is that they loose the opportunity to sell me other stuff!
Obviously, I can take some steps myself for myself to get rid of the annoyance, such as pop-up blockers and so on. But that is not my point. What I do not understand is why even the big guys (content-providers) insist on giving the cheesiest advertisers the opportunity to drive customers away from their site. One should think that they would be smarter, but obviously they are not!
no popups,unders,ads.
fast as snot.
They are copying all the good stuff from the porn biz. Do you know how effective popups and blur consoles were before everybody started using them?
They are still good but not the same as before.
Now you can even talk to your friends and co-workers about those popups and getting help to avoid them. Before if you asked about help in this subject, it was clear what you were doing since you had that problem. Now they are everywhere, dammit.
Almost every executible GUI program we use today has many of these kinds of "pop-up" dialog boxes - some more complicated than others (from confirmation dialogs to config screens). And all of them serve a useful purpose.
I'm a firm believer that developing apps using HTTP/(X)HTML as an interface is a smart move, as opposed to writing an executible for a specific platform - since it is a true write-once, run-anywhere tech (well, access-anywhere, at least from as far as client access is concerned.) And there's no reason we, as web developers, shouldn't be able to use pop-up windows for web-enabled apps.
Just because commercial sites the world over have abused pop-(up|under)s, doesn't mean the technology itself is useless.
ps. - I realize Mozilla allows you to disable scripts from opening "unrequested" windows (ie. where any "window.open" call is ignored, unless it applies to link you just clicked), but for a complicated site with various domains (eg. secure/non-secure), or other complications, it still isn't a robust enough solution to those of use developing true web-enabled applications.
IN 5OV13T RUS5HA, T3H FUNNY 1Z U!!!!! L0L! LO0OL! LO0LL!!!!!1!
The less restrictions on commercialism the better!
I didn't see anyone mention Ctrl+W to close windows. It's faster, easier, and kills IE windows quicker.
First time, I get to espn.com they warn me about the detrimental effects of not using javascript
Second time. I CANNOT get to espn, instead I am redirected to megago.com, whatever that is.
Fuch these people.
-- snip --
"The enormous success for Orbitz is directly related to these pop-unders," said Mark Rattin, creative director for Chicago-based Otherwise. "There's an enormous segment of the population that are appreciating these ads." He said that similar commercials have appeared online over the last eight months.
Um... An enormous segment of the population??? Who are these people? No one appreciates this kind of marketing. Banner ads alone are a pain (Heck, you can't even read stories on Yahoo for the blinking/animated gif in the middle of the article.
Someday, hopefully soon, these cavalier marketing folks will go out of business and things will settle down. Some advertising I guess I'll have to live with, but this stuff is too extreme.
But, honestly, I don't ever see pop [up|under] ads. Thankfully, Mozilla solves that little problem for me.
---
All the worlds a stage, and I'm the guy running the lights...
'Net marketers truly operate with a crazy paradigm. Why is it they think that by annoying people as much as possible, they get more customers?
Six sick
its like a TV smack dab on the middle of your screen. Usually for that series "24." and its only on "sometimes," I go there daily, and I see it about once a week.... probably thursdays since they want all the viewers watching for fridays, or maybe fridays, who knows.
OR one that validates user input (removing the slow interaction between server and client just to confirm they actually typed something useful into the text box)
You still need to validate the data server-side. It's not exactly smart practice to trust ANYTHING that is "validated" only from the client-side, especially with javascript. A malicious user could simply save your input page locally, remove or replace your "validation" code, and send something unexpected to your server through their newly-editted page.
For a first-line of defense, a JS form validator isn't bad - and it is a relatively quick way to tell someone "Hey, you forgot to enter your password"...but you still need to make the same checks server-side in case someone decides to "go around" your JS validator.
I agree with you, fundamental point of view: the web as an information retrieval medium should be more about data than presentation, the presentation being far more user controllable.
However, that is precisely what CSS was designed to do: decouple standard/generic document structure from presentation.
On a different level, the web is now being used increasingly as a thin-client architecture, where client display control is of great importance. In my opinion, javascript/DOM/CSS are actually *underused* in this realm.
You do appreciate the use of pop-up windows in native applications, don't you?
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. - Dijkstra
...wow, can they make our web surfing experience any worse?
Three words:
CowboyNeal bestiality ads.
I'm going to go scrub my brain with brillo now.
Actually you can now get Flash 6 for linux, so you shouldn't have that problem. There's still no Shockwave for Linux, so I guess you're SOL for complex web games. But I digress..
I just thought of something really funny:
You forgot something from your list:
11) ???
12) Profit!
Sorry, I had to.
This is a user interface issue with the UA, nothing to do with HTTP authentication. There's nothing stopping browser developers adding a Logout button to the navbar when it's using HTTP auth.
There's plenty of reason, some of it you also get with frames -- they break the UI the user is used to by breaking Back, maybe disabling parts of the UI to make the window look "cleaner", etc.
Plus they don't work everywhere, so you're already breaking the "access anywhere" concept.
You forgot something from your list:
7)
8) Profit!
Sorry, I had to.
Could this be the next frontier of web advertising? I've been to several web sites lately that feature cars driving across the page -- if they can do this, what's to stop them from taking you to another web page when the car runs over your mouse pointer?
Most of these sites will simply stop paying the people who are using the ads.
Well, I suppose that's not a bad thing after all. If you can't afford the bandwidth, and feel the need to clog connections with ads, get the fuck out of Dodge.
The funny thing is, that companies that advertise like that then go on to claim that the hit count received by their website represents genuine interested visitors.
This of course is BS, but the sadly uneducated tech. media of today write an article about.
X10 did this, I got sick of reading in Computer Weekly etc. how X10 became one of the most visited sites on the Internet.
Visted???? Visited my pointed haired a***.
Slashdot them!
SpamNet - a spam blocker that really works
Sadly, some pages do not work without Flash and some anims and games are nice. Sites like http://www.camelot-europe.com are almost unusable without Macromedias plugin.
But how can I (using Mozilla / Opera) stop a Flash ad from loading / displaying? Blocking images is no use, nor turning javascript off.
This reminds me of Back to the Future II, when Marty is walking around 2015, and there's the 3d holographic dragon/ad/thing and it jumps right in front of him, and scares the crap out of him. can't wait until the internet is like THAT!
so the old java pics that surf around the screen and you have to avoid hitting them while seeing a page? those are old but similar and just annoy.
i just wonder if i'm going to notice even those at all. i dont see popups or banners with chimera.. ^_^
You widened my page in Mozilla. Damn you!
Webwasher will happily filter out shockwave/flash animations and will allow them for sites you specify. They do make a Linux version as well, though it is kind of flaky compared to the Windows version.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
I have javascript turned off, sound on, never installed flash, no shockwave, and no other scripting junk. Images are off.
I don't see any ads, and it is rare that I run across a web site (always a business site) that requires flash for navigation. If so, I go elsewhere.
Don't miss a thing.
I use Mozilla for the rare circumstances that I'm in windows (while using P2P only), and Mozilla and Konqueror while in Gnu/Linux.
I don't get ANY popup ads with Mozilla or Konqueror. And I do get popup password boxes or registration boxes (like the Linuxworld popups for "other" in some of the demographic questions).
On Mozilla, with images off, there's the image button top center whenever I want to view images. Konqueror requires a click on the menu, follow the arrow to pop up other boxes (forget the box right now) and click once more. No biggie.
I have another user I tried for a long time to convince not to use cookies and javascript when he used IE. Then I introduced him to Mozilla and tabbed browsing. But the most important feature that stopped him from accepting all cookies and javascript on by default was a neat little plugin or extension or whatever it's called, written by someone else, and located on sourceforge if I remember correctly. I saw the info on it on a slashdot posting, and am so glad I installed it.
What is it? It is a small toolbar that sits below the Home/Bookmarks/Mozilla/Latest Builds toolbar. At the extreme right, it has a "customize" drop down box. I can select fonts, colors, images, javascript, popups, cookies, java, use proxies, allow on Load popups, enable XUL cache. If any of these are selected in the drop down box, then they appear on the toolbar. So on this toolbar right now, I see fonts, colors, images, javascript, popups, and cookies. The rest are not checked in the drop down box, and therefore do not appear on my toolbar.
Now for the items on my toolbar, a checkbox appears to the immediate left of each item. I currently have fonts and colors checked off, and these two are always checked off. Images, javascript, popups, and cookies are not checked. Whenever I want to see an image, I can right-click on the image indicator and open it, or I can check the box for images, and all images are immediately loaded. If I check javascript, javascript is enabled, and the page is immediately refreshed so that I don't have to do it manually to get javascript functionality. Same with popups, which I rarely need to use, and cookies which I do need to use from time to time.
I have total control over my browsing with this toolbar. I never see popups. Javascript is always off, and takes less than a second to turn on. Images? Don't miss them at all. When I need to see something, the button is right there in front of me.
In Konqueror, I don't have this toolbar, but I don't see popups, images are off by default, with an image button top center, and javascript is enabled on specific sites only, and turned on for other sites (rarely) as needed. Konqueror, like Mozilla, allows fine tuning of javascript for specific sites.
The toolbar for Mozilla is great. I have other users that wouldn't turn off cookies no matter what I tried, and who now turn them off by default thanks to the toolbar.
So where is this toolbar? I wish I had a link. It is on sourceforge somewhere. I think it was listed as a bug(?) or as a solution to a listed bug(?) or something like that. I wish I could be more specific. Sorry. Try a google search. I lost the original link from slashdot post myself, and googled to find it. It took me a long time to find it, but I have little experience with sourceforge.
Try googling for "toolbar, images, javascript, popups, cookies, mozilla" and anything else you think is relevant. I had to check out numerous sites before I found it. Good luck.
And I have images off by default because I tried it, and liked it. I hate in your face ads. And they are not off because I use dialup. I have a very fast dsl business line. Although surfing images off would work wonders for dialup. Can't wait to try it when I get a better laptop.
That functionality has always been available in flash Ive always been surprised no one used it.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
The web was designed for user control of presentation. Technologies that attempt to subvert this paradigm are *evil*.
Oh, bullshit.
What, you're going to write a replacement for the style sheet we spent eight months developing? Give it up.
Although the system isn't perfect yet, I know a place where you don't get *nearly* so many (if any at all), due to an advanced system for automatic filtering of such pages.
<shameless_plug><no_affiliation>I also have Pop-Up Stopper Pro. It's the best $20 I ever spent.</no_affiliation></shameless_plug&g t; Thanks to these two pieces of software, I'm virtually ad free.
However, I'm very concerned for my son who will be born this Februrary. He won't have the same opportunities as me. I'm sure that in his lifetime the corporations will convince the government that daily, mandartory brain programmings are required to induce good consumer citizenship. It'll all be part of a healthy, well-balanced psychological profile. "MUST...BUY...GOODS beep! beep!"
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
I remember about a year or so ago, there was a banner on one site which when the mouse rolled over it, it popped up another window as though I had clicked it. This confused me, as like I said, JS was definitely off. It turned out to be a flash banner.
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
Probably a good time to remind all the people forced to use Windows here of this little brilliant utility, which functions as a local proxy server and thus works with any browser, and can filter popups, the kind of mouseover events mentioned in this article, sounds, ads, everything. A must-have for Win32 people, in my opinion.
why stop at a mouse-over? sometimes they just go for the new brower window without even a click or mouseover, ad loads - window appears. mostly warez sites and such because they have no fears. But this mouseover thing just sounds like the average consumer tolerance is getting higher. Companies feel it is time they can implement this bollocks and we wont complain. Flash 6 ads are THE WORST form of evil, they fly around under your pointer preventing clicks - but you can't just close the window because they are on the page you want to read! revolt! ban the ad sites!! PAY THE MONEY, don't rely on ads to support your sites expenses (ads wont generate enough revenue, if you can't afford a few $$ to keep your site up online I say, why bother?)
The winner of the 2002 Management Doublespeak Award goes to...(opens envelope)...Mark Rattin, creative director for Chicago-based Otherwise, for the quote:
"There's an enormous segment of the population that are appreciating these ads."
*cue music, confetti, and dancing girls*
Funny you should mention it. I installed Zope recently on one of my Debian boxen. I noticed it uses HTTP Basic Authentication, the "antiquated" (read: standard, universal) mechanism to which you refer. It also has a "Logout" button that works -- if you select "Logout", it returns a page with an authentication failure code, which a browser interprets as meaning that the (username, password) pair it is caching is invalid.
The fact that you, or your Web application developer, did not think of that indicates that the Zope people know HTTP better than you or s/he. It certainly doesn't indicate anything the matter with HTTP Basic Authentication. And there's a lot right with using the protocol's built-in authentication mechanism rather than writing your own: it is easier; it requires less code; it is standard and works everywhere, unlike JavaScript; and it is better tested than any new mechanism you invent, meaning that it is less likely to fail badly and let people crack your application.
Are the ones that are full screen and make you wait before you get a link to the next page of content..
:)
And you cant 'just use netscape' or something, as if you dont have flash up and running + popups, you dont get the link to the next page..
More like a tv commercial were you cant click it away ( talking live tv here.. not tivo )
I think it was salon.com where i saw the first one, though i could be wrong..
Oh, and ive seen the mouseover popups a year ago.. nothing new there. But still irratating
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why don't us geeks just stop using convetonal web browsing all together. Perhaps some type of p2p network except with useful information, insted of JUST porn and warez. And design it so there isn't a very good way to advertise on it either. :)
-makoffee
Well hello there Klerck
- Any "yes/no/cancel" dialog - the cancel basically acts as a back button, but by having a pop-up you can prevent the user having to do a complete HTTP request/response cycle, unnecessarily loading down both the server and client.
- A pop-up explaining a problem with a users input in a form - it's a simple notification prompt, and requires only an acknowledgement (using a completely separate page is once again an
unnecessary request to the server)
- Glossary definitions, where a word, when clicked, links to a small description.
- Picture or short article viewer, where a thumb-nail/abstract list is displayed on the "main" page, but each click generates a small window with the full content.
As pointed out earlier these checks have to be done on the server end regardless, but web developers can eliminate a large percentage of extra "hits" on their server by having this check in a javascript pop-up, meaning their use has a valid purpose other than advertising.I'm the first to admit the majority of sites using javascript are doing so in an unreputable way (pop-up/under ads, maximizing the browser, having unnecessary alert pop-ups, annoying scrolling status-bar messages, etc.), but my point is that there are perfectly valid and useful ways to use javascript to enhance the functionality of a site.
But we're seeing the same reaction to javascript as we are to email now - spam has ruined the purpose for which it was intended. In the case of email, whitelists are becoming the only sure-fire way to eliminate it, at the expense of extra hassle on the user end. And in the case of javascript/pop-ups, most people in the know are turning these features off, forcing web developers like myself to disregard the valid usefulness of these technologies.
Proximitron is about the best I've found (for windows). Very very configurable. You can even allow other machines to proxy through it from elsewhere. And free, to boot.
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
90% of the websites don't really need this anyway.
It is known that some spyware will install without the users permission by just surfing with IE. It is suspected that pages just accidently happen to use security holes in the browser or just low security settings, usually with ActiveX, to work around the problem of the browser asking the user about the install.
I can't find much on the topic, so take what I say with a grain on salt. However, I know people that actually have a clue (ie. they know IE is a flaming turd and not to trust anything it tries to install) complaining that a spyware somehow gets autoinstalled on their windows boxes by just web surfing.
Gator itself does autoinstall on computers that have their IE security settings set too low and is documented on the web as doing so.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Is it just me or could that last sentence be restated as: "We want to annoy you...but only a little bit."
God save us from clever programmers and clueless marketers.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
User: "What's this? My computer is too sl- AAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!"
Doubleclick.net server: "Muhuhahaha..."
Glog!
Easy solution: If you run into a site like that, send an e-mail to them saying you won't buy their products because of it, and move on. If enough people do it, they'll get the idea.
I remember it because this was back in the day when Java was just starting to be used to replace gifs and jpgs in ad banners and before the marketeers discovered flash could be used to annoy people even more. It basically was went along the lines of "I was in charge of coding a new advertisement. Well, it was late at night and the coffee started flowing and here is the result." HP was mentioned, not blindingly annoying, but just large enough to get the point across and the majority of the banner was devoted to a little java pong game. I played with that damn thing for half an hour just because it was cool. It didn't try to annoy the fsck out of me (other than it took a minute or 2 to download on my 14.4).
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Logout will require an extra request either way, since logout should be mainly server side -- you don't want to ask the UA nicely if it'll please delete your session cookie or whatever, because it's well within it's rights to tell you to go jump in a lake, and may even pretend it's done so without actually doing anything. Clients can not be trusted.
I hate the way modal dialogs are implemented in most UA's, though. They have no place in a browsing environment -- I want to continue browsing elsewhere and an always on top dialog that demands input and which steals focus SUCKS. Better would be to use JS+DOM/CSS to place an item on the page (maybe replacing the form) to do the confirmation.
Less compatible, but you can probably fairly easily get 90% of clients, with the other 10% getting a traditional extra request.
If the description is small, the title attribute is better. You can even use some DHTML to make it into a pseudopopup on click. Personally I'd just do a normal link with a glossary and let the user hit Back.
Probably the worst use. If they're articles and pictures, they're real content and I'd rather get them in the current page rather than screwing up my normal browsing reflexes and giving me a teeny browser window that may or may not even fit in with my environment.
Anybody who's done much Javascript can come up with plenty more annoying tricks, like hiding the close buttons, popping up a fake window, etc. Yahoo sortof does some of these with the DHTML ads. I guess the content providers wouldn't like it, but there's alot more annoying things that could be done. That being said, this is plenty annoying for me.
Zope uses session cookies (as do most sites - mod_session in Apache, for example), meaning they have implemented a clever but common work-around. The browser will send the username/password for every single page after using basic authentication, but since Zope knows the Session ID for the client (stored in a cookie), it will intentionally respond with a "404 - Authentication Required" error when the user clicks on the logout button (meaning the browser thinks the username/password was wrong, thus clearing its local cache of said information). The problem is that the authentication is really based on the cookies, not the "standard, universal" authentication. Zope only uses Basic Authentication to get the initial username/password, and then relies on cookies thereafter.
I'm all for standards, but when they lack in basic funcationality, other methods must unfortunately be utilized.
(ps. I'm no Zope expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong and there's some hidden feature of HTTP I'm not aware of).
A small text-only non-obtrusive add that -- most importantly -- links to a comment section where potential clients can comment on the advertiser and, glory be, some rep from that company is there to answer questions and address criticisms.
For example, this ad and comment page for Johncompanies helped convince me to get a virtual dedicated host with them.
It also has the added benefit that the advertiser gets a real-life feel for how effective the ad is, and doesn't have to rely on some easily falsifiable clickthrough or impression report from the advertising company.
Now, if you're peddling shit, I'm sure this kind of instant-feedback type ad is not going to be your cup-of-tea. Another reason why I like these ads.
D'oh! Figures - try to be smart, and screw up the link... Here's the correct RFC link (the RFC number 2616 was correct).
There's nothing stopping browser developers adding a Logout button to the navbar when it's using HTTP auth.
And in fact, there's an RFE about this very issue filed in Mozilla's bug database. See bug 55181.
Will I retire or break 10K?
HA HA HA ! You guys most not be using MOZILLA !!
...I predict a lot more people are going to learn about Alt-F4.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Sadly that wouldn't work at all, except on the very oldest of httpd's, in the modern age of multiplexing web servers many hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections can be served in a second.
But the database servers still have resources associated with them. If you manage to hit a page that's expensive to generate, then request that page repeatedly, varying the query string slightly from request to request so that your target can't do server side caching.
Will I retire or break 10K?
How many tens of thousands of distributed.net users are now idle since they finally cracked the RC5 challenge?
They have moved onto RC5-72 or OGR. Besides, distributed.net computers on dial-up or ISDN connect to the Internet only about once a day, and some don't connect to the Internet at all; they connect only to a personal proxy on the local network.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I make it a goal not to buy from companies that use those pop-ups. There is always a competing product that can be bought without having to buy said "pop-up" product. I know if enough people were to decide to do this, at least the large companies would choose not to advertise this way.
I went to epsn.com - another "search engine" owned by domain squatters. They call themselves "megago" this time.
However, it dropped down a Mozilla warning field!! Your only options are "Cancel" or "OK." Obviously, "OK" is the default, so if you hit return, off you go to some other website. Now that is a bunch of crap.grr..
Screenshot here
Ya - and teach everyone to fish and you run into the problem of no cod off the grand banks.
Opera 7 Beta 1 and 2 has a feature called "Open requested pop-up windows only". I don't think Load() in OnMouseOver counts as a requested pop-up window. I'm surfing with that feature right now, and haven't had a pop-up appear for a looong time.
is the flyer in the local paper from Best Buy and the banners at the top of slashdot and the vertical banners at penny arcade.
-
This is exactly why I use Opera. And it is actually intelligent, too. It only blocks the pop-ups that are activated by JavaScript when the page loads, but it leaves the click-activated pop-ups that are essential to some sites. Do what you will with the pop-ups, I say, because I won't see them anyway.
I wish I could when some dumbass sight designs it for 600x480 and I'm viewing it on my 1600x1280 screen.
I beat the living shit out of anyone who threatens me.
Or anywhere else for that matter.
turn off flash and javascript....
problem solved.. All they are doing are destroying a technologies that were useful..
Me, I dont have flash installed and have javascript turned off... if your site relies on either then you lose another customer because of your "bretheren's" actions.
dont like that I lump you all together? then start speaking out against it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
How about a login/password box (and NOT using the antiquated HTTP method of authenication - for one, it has no way to "logout" a user). OR any quick dialog box that requires a yes/no/cancel interaction. OR one that validates user input (removing the slow interaction between server and client just to confirm they actually typed something useful into the text box)
:-) so No, you are wrong, they are a sign of either incompetent coding or someone trying to shovel ad's in my face....
only found on LAZY web designers sites... funny hoe many of these are fading away because it's easier and more tasteful to put them in the page...
isn't it interesting that all that you mentioned are NOT USED on a website that is more sucessful than any websitethat does use them??? slashdot has none of these
Maybe I'm just young and smug, but it seems more and more that I understand the meaning of the "nothing new under the sun" line. For most types of innovation we see today, there's not a whole lot that seems particularly innovative. Mostly it's just people using old ideas in new ways that are cool but not exactly what I'd call true genius. Sometimes, innovation just seems pretty simple and easy. But it's still progress (unless, of course, we're talking about pop-up ads).
You can find documentation and an example configuration at http://www.schooner.com/~loverso/no-ads/
Lately, I've purposely been visiting lots of sites that send me SPAM, pop-up ads, and other annoyances. Usually, these sites want information from you and have a form to fill out. Simply fill out the form with junk data and submit it a couple times. If the company wasted some of your time, you are entitled to waste some of their time (not to mention diskpace).
Some sites might have a threatening message that says, "We have your IP and we'll contact you if you mess with us." If that's the case, simply connect through a free proxy server.
I recommend everyone try this. You'll feel better afterwards.
It's not stupidity that drives marketers to do such things. It's desperate greed. In case you haven't noticed there's still a lot of competition, on the 'net, for 'net surfers' attention. Everyone knows how to draw interest to one's products: provide entertaining/interesting content to attract your target market with how to buy links cleverly placed within the content. That is, sell by entertaining your target market. The difficulty is that this is not easy. Any relatively intelligent idiot (oxymoron? Nah!) can create an annoying pop-up/under ad if he/she is greedy enough. But, it takes inspiration and hard work (read genius) to create something interesting and entertaining.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel, boys and girls!
Hallelujah!
Gather 'round all ye users of Windows and hear the word of the Proxo.
Hallelujah!
I say hallelujah and praise the filter. Feel the Proxomitron's power as you surf.
Hallelujah!
I ask ye brothers and sisters to go forth unto this land and spread the link.
Hallelujah!
I get popped up on ONCE and only ONCE. You figure out my system...
How about the Mozilla team enabling you to click no only once when you are prompted to download and install Flash, instead of having to answer no every time you visit a site that has flash.
We need a global NO.
While laws vary from country to country, it can be quite easy to turn this to your advantage - damages caused by this activity can be recovered through the court system (although you may have to bring it to the local repair shop to confirm the amount of damages).
If you feel really lucky, perform the litigation in your own home town and convince the judge that the case is within the local jurisdiction. After all, if they hacked *your* computer, that's where the tort occurred...
How rude of those people, considering everyone who's anyone on the web is viewing with 1600x1280... dipshit.
and the spelling is "site" as in the web, not "sight" as in you're blind. Now please step off your soapbox.
If the companies doing the advertising actually paid attention to how much more products they can sell during/after an advertising campaign, maybe they would open their eyes a little.
Advertising is too omnipresent to be noticed. People have learnt to ignore it.
What you said about click-throughs being seen as revenue is right to the point. No product is sold by clicking on the banner. At most, it's just an extra pair of eyeball looking at the product offer. But it's not a sale. No money moves around.
I'd like to see the age of common sense.
Perhaps you are referring to QuickPrefs? Great button. I'd recommend installing it.
Better yet...
Set up the same computer to auto-dial Orbitz customer service at 888-656-4546 whenever your browser encounters a link to their site. A suitable audio clip from South Park would certainly be appreciated by whomever answers the phone.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It IS hyperTEXT transfer protocol, after all. There's no room for graphics or anything other than text, IMNSHO.
asdfghjkl;
A popupwindow contains html content. A message box (including a password dialog) is not the same item as a popup window. Seems to me that with a cracked popup blocker I can block popup windows and not dialogs, which is fine by me.
Actually, I *do* prefer a B&W mono-spaced equally-formatted no-graphics page ... okay, so mine is set to black on grey, but the principle is the same. Want to keep me coming back to your site? Make it plain as dirt, thus fast and easy to read. And use context-relevant text ads that I can read or ignore as I wish.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Global no? I got your global no right here:
userChrome.css:
[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"]
{
display: none !important;
}
Put it in there. No more "install this plugin?" crap. It was really annoying on my system, since I tend to run Mozilla full-screen, so my window manager couldn't autoplace the popup. That made it grab the focus away from whatever I was doing, and so on. Evil.
Be sure you restart Mozilla after doing this change.
I've generally found this tool very useful. If you're running a Windows box then try the Proxomitron
I remember some time ago, the Globe and Mail, http://globeandmail.com/, a Toronto newspaper, had a regular mouse over ad, which was annoying as hell. The first time I was certain I had accidently clicked on a link...
not fighting back
Just get the proxomitron. It's a proxy server that you can use to cut out pop-ups and other ads from HTML before it ever gets to your browser. You can also create custom filters to get rid of annoying intrasites, flash, etc....
http://home.arcor.de/six/
I see one pop-up every 2-3 weeks now.
For the love of frickin' Gawd! Like I believe that any more than I believed Ollie North during the Iran-Contra hearings!
Spread the RC luvin'
I use a couple different databases for my hosts file, and I have disabled flash and javascript, only turning them on when I'm at a site that A) requires them, and B) I'm really really interested in.
Voila, I may get 5 ads a day through servers not yet in my hosts file, and they get added immediately.
There are ways to take back your internet experience.
That's why I think Congress should save us all a lot of trouble by just outlawing advertising now. Either way, the end result will be the same: people will see few if any ads, and content providers will need to come up with alternate means of generating revenue. Better to force the issue now than put us all through years of annoyance and frustration, which won't even really help the industry.
In the meantime, I'll use Mozilla's pop-up blocking, /etc/hosts files, the Internet Junkbuster proxy, and anything else I can to keep ads off my screen.
Although Microsoft has most likely done reasearch on pop up ad's and are aware of their customers wanting such a feature, Especially when MSN competitors are touting Pop Up Blockers as a feature of their service, not to mention the deceptive nature of popups these days, Microsoft Will not do it.
Why you Ask? Because They will get Sued for Being a Monopoly or Stifiling Competition, and Lose.
Dont Believe Me? When Outlook Express 4 was in it's beta stages, It had a spam filter similar to the one that Hotmail and Outlook currently have. You dont see it in Outlook Express because a company that was sending newsletters sued them for being a Monopoly because the Spam filter would fiter the companies Legitmate E-mail. Even though Microsoft explained that it was the way they were sending the mail and there was an easy fix to it, they didn't budge, They won the case, and Spam continues to flow to inboxes.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
So now we are going to be thieves for not moving our mouse over certain areas of our own screens.
Lynx looks more attractive every day. It'll all go full circle I tell you.
No-click purchasing :>)
I'm all for the disabling of flash, but I don't think I can live without my homestar runner!
probably invented by the same jerks who think people like being interupted my phone sales during dinner
I do this because I can't always find an email address, or a complaint page without spending more time than I really want to.
Of course, I dont really want to see the results so I use wget or curl to actually fetch the pages, and just to make sure the message gets seen I do a hundred or three fetches. With delays, of course, as I don't want to do a DOS attack.
nhl.com, a site that I visit frequently, started running those really annoying flash popups for Speedstick deodorant, a product that I used to buy regularly. They disrupted my surfing experience enough for me to go out of my way to buy their competitor's product.
http://www.speedsite.com/~rattin/history.html
Tell Mark Rattin he's a bastard!
mrattin@otherwiseinc.com
rattin@xsite.net
These are some other company addresses.
pcanic@otherwiseinc.com
wise@otherwiseinc.com
dmtitus@otherwiseinc.com
marjohn@otherwiseinc.com
Here's the site of one of their employees. He keeps a blog.
http://www.matthewmercer.com
If you care to hack into their mail server, here's the portal to their web configuration:
http://66.107.28.184:3000
They're running MDaemon 6.5.1 which has no known vulnerabilities other than a weak password. The lucky guesser gets to screw with their email!
Still, others worry about the strategy tarnishing online advertising's evolving image.
nah nothing to worry about buddy. reputations cant get more tarnished then online advitizers
This takes too much work and it doesn't appeal to the advertising types.
Advertising types are more interested in flash (in whatever way you want to use that word), vivid images, loud noises, and especially annoyances (annoying works in advertising). Thats the kind of people advertising people hire and thats what they want to do.
They don't want to have to think. They don't want to have to work.
And they've sold this to too many of the companies out there that want to sell things - usually because they hire advertising types themselves. That other approaches might be effective and even far more so is irrelevant.
After reading your comments, we will be taking down all of our ads, popups and banners. We apologize for the inconvience, and hope that you will find our *new* ads less distracting.
These ads will override your monitors gain, and burn their image directly into your monitor's phosphor. No other content will be viewable.
We do understand that the world outside of the computer can be distracting as well, so in early 2003 we will be releasing new ads that should work directly on your eyes! These ads will blind you to everything but our message. No more popups!
Thanks for your attention; we wish you a safe and joyful holiday season!
jtflashmanager works for at least IE, Netscape, and Mozilla. Check it out!
http://www.jtedley.com/jtflashmanager/index.php
Speak truth to power.
"OR one that validates user input (removing the slow interaction between server and client just to confirm they actually typed something useful into the text box) " .. if you think that's acceptable. You still have to validate it on the server side. The only thing client-side JS validation should be used for is accelerating reporting of problems to the user. You still have to validate everything on the server side. To do less is insecure.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I say " show me one ". Not one person who has ever clicked an ad, or found something useful in online advertising, but somone who has "appreciated" these pop-unders or new "kick overs".
People (as I understand it) don't want this sort of stuff. They want something like a banner ad that is easily ignored unless it is relevant to them. About the only banner ads I click are the
While people say how wonderful IE is and how netscape/mozilla has lost the browser war, and that linux sucks on the desktop. I can't tell you the last pop up/under/flash ad I saw. I use a browser that most tend to ignore (yea yea, keep it under the radar), and if the stupid propriatary scripting does work, it is easily turned off (I either set popups to not be allowed or to open in tabs in the background, where I can close them without ever looking at them).
99% of plugins don't work with mozilla? Gosh, NO! No more gator activeX controls that offer to install on their own? I am so missing out aren't I.
Even if mozilla becomes a target for advertisers, it seems that mozilla is actually listening to the users, and implementing the types of options that they want (pop up blocking, spam blocking) as opposed to IE, which makes it just that much more diffucult to have an online experience that is ad free (and therefor company unfriendly).
Hey IE, why is it so easy to allow plugins yet so easy to not? Where is the "never allow" (for gator activeX esp)? I see there is an "always allow". Why doesn't the cookie more information button save state properly? Hate to piss off those big corporations that you're brownnosing up to.
Free software will be the reason that people never see this shit. Made for the people, and by the people.
I think your web browsing experience is regulated solely by the browser you use.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
"You still need to validate the data server-side."
Of course. But if you are doing client-side validation, your server-side stuff can be simplier and more fugly.
It is forced upon the user, but if the volume is high enough, a very, very low conversion rate of 1% could still be reveune generating.
However, I doubt Orbitz is doing a marketing blitz on every single site to achive this. Even with the cheap rates media buyers get now, it is not cost-effective (and not to mention annoying).
I think they could be pulling a fast-one to the higher-up execs. The marketing people could say "Hey, look at all these people who 'clicked' into web site with this great ad we made. But, they arent buying, maybe there's something wrong with what we offer."
So, basically the marketing people would get credit for high click-through rate and blame someone else for the poor conversion.
Ok, so can you tell I work in Internet Marketing? But, not, we never do something as stupid as pop-up ads. And, I really hate it that people like Orbitz are ruining what little reputation we people have.
Did Orbitz come up with this ad in-house or through an agency?
Is this legal? :)
Well, there's now law about internet ads....but it's sure a bit too much.
It's like if I was walking on the street passing shops and one while passing in front of one a employee would take my arm and bring me in the store by force.
I had no intention whatsoever to go in there and I'm force to go.
Mmmmmm, I see some suuuuing cuming
The people upstairs are working on a blacklist of people telemarketers can't call. How hard would it be to set up some database with all the sites that use annoying advertisements?
When a new site is added, it e-mails the webmasters, telling them about the database and why they've been blacklisted and what not. Browsers could then access the database and display a warning, those who are interested in fighting can decide based on the value of the site whether to view it or have the database send another e-mail saying you just lost another hit. Those who don't give a dern can just turn off the messages.
I'd assume there'd have to be some method of verification to prevent Joe Bob from blacklisting his ex's boyfriend and other such revenge. (This is assuming that upon discovering an annoying site, a person can make an addition/suggestion to the database people.) But I'm not sure of the best way to implement this.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe them to a lot of snail-mail advertisements going directly to their homes.
Wonder if anyone thought of that one before...
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Now, it's possible that I don't have quite all of the Flash/Schlockwave plugins reinstalled correctly since the last time I installed a new rev of Phoenix :-) I'm running 0.5, and I've had some problems with some plugins not working, since their installers seem to want Real Netscape, but most are ok, and about:plugins claims that I've got Shockwave 6.something installed.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I use Mac Internet Explorer 5.1 and I have developed not getting annoying adds to a fine art :)
I don't like using add blocker programs so I do it the old fashioned way, if a page absolutely needs javascript, I click command; then click the javascript activation button or plug-in button then click enter.
It takes 3 seconds and the majority of web pages don't need javascript anyway so I keep it off 97.3 percent of my surfing time but most importantly I never get pop up adds or flash unless I absolutely want it.
Slashdot and BBC news are two examples of pages that are worth spending 3 seconds to have plug ins and javascript active but the rest of the time they're just not needed.
I wish there was a feature in browsers that would allow the preferences to revert back to the original settings after your finished visiting a certain important page.
This isn't a popup blocker you're installing - those are for those poor suckers using IE who need all the protection they can get. This is just choosing the option that implements or doesn't implement popup windows, telling it you don't want the things. Works real fine; the last time I was on a machine that didn't have Mozilla, I was really appalled at what IE users have to put up with.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hey what a cool idea. Yes I need some samples of this stuff. Please give me samlple code... Wait lets not do that. bad aenough we are telling everyone it could be done. Now using IE will be more annoying as everyone who didnt know about it soon will. I will not blame slashdot. I just dont think anyone will do anything constructive to stop this if the people programing the brousers want pop up support. Oh well mozilla seems to be working faster for me anyway. That I asumes makes some of you happy. I dont like changing software if what I have works well. So I will still be running 98 and IE when it suits me. Besides if it has pop ups I KNOW its a crappy inconciderate site and thus restart exprorer and not visit it. I know several web sides that DO NOT link to sides with pop ups. I may be better off who knows. So please set your policy to not link to those sites with this on your pages it makes you look bad. With enough luck we will route around this and be better for it. I can put up with pop ups for now.
The main problem with 127.0.0.1 is that if you're also running a real web server on your machine, the requests for blocked sites will be sent to it, so your system will have to respond in some appropriate manner, and your browser will have to display the response appropriately. Some operating systems don't seem to have the clue that 127.0.0.2 is different from 127.0.0.1 :-) I haven't installed a web server on my main work machine since it got upgraded (?) to Win2000, but older Windows used to be a bit fuzzy about the distinction.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Rant on the site that linked you to the crappy pop up site. Dont link to them they are iresponsible. As soon as you come across a site that does this you know its crappy and inconsiderate and leave.
Uh, people are still bothered by pop-up ads? Time to upgrade your browser to Mozilla. I haven't seen a popup in months.
If it's a problem that can be solved at your end, with minimal hassle, then what's the story?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I go to ESPN.com like 5 times a day... I don't notice any popups... ohhh, wait a minute! I use a real web browser called Opera.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
If these things catch on, they'll kill the pop-under market.
In the meantime, I recomend picking up a little program called the Proxomitron. An excelent pop-up, java, flash and other web elements blocker. Any code you find annoying, you can simply tell it to block. You can create new filters, modify old filters and customize it right down to which sites which filters can apply to. Very nice program.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
cookies, javascript, java, on a domain by domain basis.
You can allow cookies, then search and destroy cookies, saving those which you want to keep.
Block or enable auto-refresh, animations, music, referrers, once again on a domain by domain basis, and they update their ads database and ad detection engine readily.
http://www.adsubtract.com
The "overlay" type Flash ads only work with the ActiveX version of the flash plugin. If you're not using IE, they're not an issue.
DNA just wants to be free...
... current version of Proxomitron filters them out... no link since I get modded down for being helpful. =)
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
umm.. do you mean like these??
alert("Your input is not valid");
OR
confirm("Are you sure you want to do that?");
These will work on any browser that has javascript enabled and require very little work from you.
Of course they wont make the designers very happy because they can't control the look and feel, but don't try to say you can't do these things because someone has blocked popups...
(ok, ok, I've been playing with PHP lately ;)
Maybe it's under my threshold or something, but if you haven't installed Privoxy as a local proxy yet, you're n-v-t-s nuts..
Works great in Linux, and OS X from personal experience, and it's supported on just about anything.. Though I have a bug with Mac IE on OSX and Privoxy, which doesn't really bug me (Chimera works perfectly)..
go get it.. this shouldnt even be an issue..
Privoxy works under nixes and win32. It allows on-the-fly rewriting of web pages to eliminate all the nasties. It's fast (a few tough sell converts were amazed ... it is instantaneous).
... yet not missing any of that junk!
Plus, you can configure it easily via its web interface. I have it set to allow some friendly but fragile sites, and replace the checkerboard blocked ad images with a transparent one (ads just magically disappear!).
Used in conjuction with Mozilla (cookie manager, allow images from site only) and the web becomes useful again.
Last time I checked the privoxy stats, I was blocking 17% of all requests
Constructive use of popups?o r example
Howabout net art?
http://www.aphid.org/tilereef/loader.php
f
though perhaps it's not that constructive. bugger.
use mozilla
if that doesnot work stop visiting sites with pop-up ads or whenever you get to a site with pop-up ads just use the hotkeys to close the processes.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Gee, will the wonders ever cease!?!?!
I honestly cannot believe it is just now that people (ie: webmasters and web programmers) are figuring out what can be done with such things and some very minor Javascripting and/or Java.
Totally unimpressed...
Rob - My Place
WebMaster:
BinFeeds
XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but
This is a rapidly changing business, and the one thing that everybody's sure of is that
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This is not going to be the next-gen popup ads. Webmasters have to balance between what their users view to be acceptable ads, and making money. There is a very fine line. Most Internet users (read: not /. users) are not terribly bothered by popups - they can live with them. When you cross the line into the unacceptable area, these people will simply stop going to your Web site.
; ">
Any sites that use this technique (which is just a simple javascript command), will find that the people that once visited their site will no longer be there, and their site will simply die out from lack of traffic.
If I was an advertiser, I would not want this method of advertising done. I want to know how many people were genuinely interested in the ad, not how many people happened to move their mouse over the ad on the way to the X button.
I don't think advertisers OR publishers will go for this type of system. C|Net is just building hype on something that is not there.
Personally, I run a Web site that gets around 2 million pageviews a day, and I would never use a system like that for the ads.
BTW, the code for the popups would be simple, such as:
<IMG SRC="blah.gif" onMouseOver="self.location='http://slashdot.org/'
As long as Pheonix/Opera/Mozilla/etc. finds a way to block it we can all surf peacefully. :) And it will happen or I'll develop it myself!
Personally, I'd actually click on a pop-up ad that read:
Click here to never see a pop-up add again.
$G
-- $G
The issue here is that there is a big difference between how "we" think "we" respond to marketers and how we actually repsond.
Marketers are actually quite sophisticated in measuring how users move up the chain from:
view --> click --> browse --> purchase
It is relatively straighforward to price each of those stages. When "we" think "we" never click on the cute monkeys, the truth is "we" do. And we click on enough monkeys.
With all of the monkey clicking going on, I imagine soon Orbitz will be wondering where the copy of Hamlet came from....
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
A distributed "5 minute crusade" of phone calls does get their attention. They might choose not to care, but it'll have to be a choice on their part- and later on that choice may come back to bite them (or not, perhaps we aren't as big of a group as we think. Can't know until we try, though).
I won't post the email, or the reply here, but essentially I complained about their flash ads that obscure the page I'm trying to read, and the HTTP-Refresh ads that completely break the back button. I told them that these ads frustrated and disgusted me, and that I wouldn't buy products from these ads no matter what they were selling, and that I thought Salon would benefit from a different style of advertisement.
The response I got was wonderfully pleasant, and explained how Salon was going in the hole, financially, and the only way they can make money is to take whatever the advertising companies tell them to put up, and these annoying (and in my opinion, ineffective) ads are the ones they're paying big bucks for now. I sent a reply thanking him for his prompt and curteous response, and told him I hoped the advertisers wised up - these things are hurting both the companies advertised for, and Salon. So that's my point. It's the advertising agencies, not the sites hosting the ads, that need a clue-stick. They need to realize that annoying the user is not going to help, and it's much better to use the power of the internet to deliver subtle ads for things people really want (like Google's AdWords - you always get something related to what you're searching for). That's all.
I use Chimera Navigator for Mac OS X, a free browser tha suppresses pop-ups quite nicely -- I don't know whether it would do so for these spring-loaded buggers. But it can also suppress pop-ups you want to see.
I think Opera has anti-pop-up tech, right? Others?
Wouldn't it be cool to have a DMCA for Web ads, where circumvention technology would be banned? Just kidding. (Can anyone name the science fiction story I recall where in a world of compulsory advertising everywhere, even on toilet paper, people get hauled off for "treatment" if they attempt to escape? Bradbury?)
You can also turn off Javascript, but that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Javascript occasionally does something useful.
Any site that pelts you with ads should (1) be avoided and, if you care, (2) get a complaint letter. Vote with your feet.
I haven't seen a popup in months and months thanks to good popup blocking in Opera and Mozilla.
I haven't seen a banner ad in months as well thanks to Bannerblind.
I always delete the flash dll mozilla uses so I never see flash ads either. (Occasionally it is required so I use opera for that.)
This is all highly necessary because I can only get 28.8 where I live (not even 56K) and damn flash and other banners slow you down so your surfing is impossible.
Seriously the only ads I ever manage to see are those text ones on google and they tend to be relevant and non-annoying so I sometimes click through.
I find that pop-ups are used quite constructively on many e-commerce sites. For example, if you are on the page where you type in your credit card information and you don't know what the "Card verification number" is, you can click 'help' and a little window pops up showing you how to find it.
This avoids the problem of redirecting the current window to another page and then losing the currently entered contents of the form. If also avoids clutter on the form.
"There's an enormous segment of the population that are appreciating these ads."
OK hands up those people...
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
this might be sort of off-topic, but I wonder if you can find out how much dough companies make off pop-adds and such. I mean..has anybody bought one of those little camera thingees? I guess this must be some sort of an effective way of advertisment, otherwise everybody would have wisened up and stopped using it.
Personally, if I see a banner ad or popup that does actually interest me I avoid clicking on it-- I paste the link into a new browser window, delete any extra stuff in the url, and take a look. That way I just came from nowhere and the miscreants won't get the idea that their advertising worked. As for the current passive rollover javascript exploit, (and it IS an exploit) the sites that are running those ads should be charging $100 an ad impression. If Otherwise/Orbitz wants to use such tricks to drive traffic they can just pay for it.
.
My point is that as more and more people turn JS off, a useful feature of modern browsers is removed.
I'm sure they are wondering about the same questions. And the only way to really find out is to go ahead and test it. This and many other versions of online ads. It may work, or it may fail. Eventually they will bump into a model that works pretty well for everybody.
And that day Slashdot will be full of posts from people who had known all along that that was obviously the way to do it...
The Internet restricts YOU!
...dumbasses you... instead of crying you should consider an easy solution: turn off javascript. uh... ok... you lille kiddies won't be able to visit your own homepage anymore... d'uh... uh... that's really a problem...
Use the pop-up blocker.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
HTTP basic? yeah, real secure. (Of course I'm an idiot of Zope is doing it over HTTPS, but if it sends with every single page, you either stay in HTTPS the whole time or you're screwed)
It sees this as a "mouse script trick" and blocks it. I'd like to see that built into browsers though. Blah
I just read through that entire thread. Apparently Capitol One still has issues with Mozilla.
Thank goodness that Pheonix came bundled with popup blocking automatically enabled.
I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots? Or only five?
keep your /etc/hosts file up to date
and
set your browser to "ask" on javascript.
When you find sites that annoy you with pop-ups just disable it for THAT site.. No big deal.
I use Konqueror and I can customize it's behaviour for individual sites. I don't have pop-ups OR ads showing up on my box.
And, I just can't say enough good things about having a dedicated Linux firewall. I use floppyfw and love it..
I had the extreme displeasure of running IE on a Win2k box the other day and I almost beat the sh*t out of it with a baseball bat because of the freaking pop-ups.. What a miserable experiance. No wonder people have mental problems, dealing with all the spam, viruses, pop-ups, etc...
I just can't find anything good to say about Windows, IE or OE... Not a thing..
I saw one sight that had a constructive use of a popup. It was a while ago, and a boring site, so I kinda forgot the address after not bookmarking it.
The popup was a site navigation and search tool. Made it easier to get around and find what you were looking for on their site.
Of course a case could be made that to need such a tool, the sites design was lacking in the first place, but that's just a side note.
but pop-up ads are legal (even though they are annoying as hell).
/. , Bluesnews and maybe Yahoo. These things seem to spawn from just looking at a computer.
True, to a point. There are several of these ads that could be flirting at the very edge of the concept of "Truth in Advertising." However, no one is really willing to call them on it as much because the evidence is so easy to hide on the internet. If a banner ad comes up and says something outright false, as soon as the complaint is loged (Speed Up Your Internet Connection Now!), the banner can be erased. Beyond that, most of these palces aren't a true business in the sense of walls, staff, and everything. They could be a shed with some kid uploading bad code (AOL?).
How many of you window's users have run Ad-Aware out there and come up with 10 sex-tracker ads, even though you've never touched something outside of Google,
And most things anymore aren't content to just go away. NewDotNet for example, seems to install on it's own without authorization. While it leaves rather nicely, it's still annoying.
Instead of pop-up ads, pop-up content. When you request a page, the server will return an advertisement and nothing but that to the main window. Then the main window will spawn a maximized pop-up with the content you requested. If your browser ignores the applicable Javascript code, then no alphabits soup for you.
I can imagine an irritating but useful site like Yahoo doing that one once the pop-up blocking method of Mozilla, etc., is widespread.
Just a few years ago, people were annoyed by links that opened in a new browser window. Some found the feature useful (since a lot of people tend to Right-Click > Open in New Window, for referenced URLs anyway). The problem with pop-up windows is not in the technology, but in the application. Windows Update has utilized a pop-up window for years on sub-WinXP systems. While not the most necessary use of a pop-up window, it was fluff that made the Windows Update experience easier on the end user. When pop-up technology is used for advertising is when people get annoyed. Aside from wasting your time, they can potentially harm your system. For example, there are some news/info websites that will automatically spawn a pop-up ad window every couple of minutes. Imagine the fun you'd have if you kept your browser open to that page and then idled to go see a movie... only to come back to a desktop littered with memory-hogging pop-ups. A situation that could probably crash any other apps you had running. Sometimes, the only effective pop-up killer is hitting your browser's "Stop" button once the text of the page has loaded, but not the image/flash banners and script-based pop-ups.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
I know this is late in the lifecycle of this article, but I figured I'd post it anyway. Some sites actually PREVENT you from using them if you use a program to block pop-ups. This includes Mozilla and Opera's built-in functions. The script? AntiAdBlocker. (Not that it's very hard to get around, since the script is so dumb that you pass it the URL in the GET header, but it could dissuade Joe Sixpack from using Mozilla because they can't access sites.)
[insert witty comment here]
You could also use the <abbr> tag, which will associate a tooltip with a chunk of text. HP is one site that uses this tag frequently...as an example, hover over the underlined "PCs" in the "PCs & workstations" link on their homepage. A tooltip that says "Personal computers" will pop up.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
This would be insufficient for my previous example because they use a couple of nice little pictures in the help display.
Also, on the Paypal site, (aside from their shady business) they use one of those little popups to explain the use of typing in what you see in the image and also provide a link to an audio version of the code so the visually impaired can see it.
Well, you know... those guys invested a lot on marketing, research, and they actually know that their product is so good that will break sales records, and they are going to make billions.
If for some reason their sales don't raise an exponential increase, surely it is because of pirates and terrorists refusing to buy.
So then there would be a new Digital Millenium Popup Act that will assure those companies their deserved revenue.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
That's not it. The one I'm using is much better. It is a toolbar that extends across the top of the browser, below all the other toolbars. It is very thin,just large enough to fit the items listed. You don't have to click through menus. You simply click on the specific item (ie: images, or cookies, or javascript), and the checkbox to the left of it is automatically checked, and the page is refreshed if the page needs to be refreshed to activate the item (like javascript) or the images are automatically downloaded if you click on images.
So you don't have to go through any menus. All the items you choose to list on the toolbar or menubar are instantly clickable and instantly activated. This is so much better than going through menus. And it beats ie hands down. It was impossible to get a non-techie user to surf with images, javascript, and cookies off by default, as these are needed for some of the sites checked daily by him. When I showed him Mozilla with the tabbed feature, and this toolbar, he chooses images on, but java, javascript, cookies, popups, and I forget what else are now all off by default after I showed him what to do/how it works. He's more than satisfied, and no longer uses ie. Since he's the windows user of the dual-boot workstation, this is great for security on my part, and better for him on usability and control. And he loves the fact that popups are gone.
I'm going to look at the mozilla file and check the download folder if it still exists. I may get the name of the plugin/extension then. If I do, I'll post it here. How long can I post before posts are blocked on slashdot?
Privoxy works and it is free. It blocks all pop-up ads, javascript madness, and other time-wasting ads.
In that case, you're referring to the preferences toolbar from XulPlanet. Enjoy.
The individual choice of garnishment of a burger can be an important
point to the consumer in this day when individualism is an increasingly
important thing to people.
-- Donald N. Smith, president of Burger King
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...