rich text editor / images / link / new window

[bitterlawngnome]

Title:
rich text editor / images / link / new window

Area:
entries / rich text editor

Summary:
a radio button to insert TARGET="_blank" when a link is generated around an image in the rich text editor

Description:
It would be nice to have all the same options for an image link as for a text link.

Poll #2257 rich text editor / images / link / new window

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
7 (23.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
4 (13.3%)

(I have no opinion)
19 (63.3%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[matgb]

The RTE allows for target blank links as an option?

Another reason to dislike it utterly, I have yet to see a good reason for blank links to still exist, thank god for overrides in the browser.

[bitterlawngnome]

what would be preferable?

[matgb]

You want consistency of options.

I say remove the option to insert blank links completely. That way people aren't encouraged to insert the user-unfriendly things. One of the first things I learnt when coding was how bad they were from a usability and accessibility perspective.

That was in 1999. Things have changed against their use in the meantime, they really mess up default setting tabbed browsers, for example, and confuse most non-power users.

[bitterlawngnome]

what would be preferable?

[danthered]

It's easy to project one's own opinions and preferences onto the universe at large, but keep in mind user unfriendliness is in the eye of the user. I haven't seen any difficulty with target-blank links in tabbed browsers; Firefox and Safari, for instance, give the configurable option to have them open in a new window or a new tab. Me, I find target-blank links greatly enhance the user-friendliness of a link; in fact, in most cases I prefer them to the sort of link that opens in the present page. Which of us is right? Probably neither, for both positions are valid preferences. But that's all they are, is preferences—not universal Truths.

I agree with you that consistency of options is good, which is why the suggestion ought to be implemented as proposed.

[yvi]

But that's all they are, is preferences

However, if a link has target=blank hardcoded into it, you have no choice to open it in the current tab/window. If it isn't hardcoded you still have the option to open it in a new window/tab because the browser offers that option. So the hardcoding is taking options away.

I voted yes for consistency, but I don't like people using it either - sometimes I want to open stuff in the same window/tab and I'd like that option not to be taken away from me.

[matgb]

As yvi says, and there are studies on this (have a look through Nielsen's Alertbox or similar if you want), forcing target blank removes choice, whereas not forcing it allows users to easily choose.

You and I know how to go into preferences and change settings. Most don't. I'm not a usability pro, not good enough, but I've been studying it pretty much since I came online ten years ago, forcing your readers to do something they haven't chosen to do is, according to studies, very bad practice.

(@OP, you asked a question, I answered it, if you wanted me to clarify a point, ask for clarification, simply reasking the same, answered, question, is pointless and annoying)

[bitterlawngnome]

Sorry to be picayune, but you've told me twice what NOT to do (and why), but not what to do. I got your point about what you don't like, but I still would like to know what you recommend instead (here's where I could potentially learn something new/better)

It might just be that the answer is obvious to you? (well obviously you should do XYZ...) but it's not to me.

[matgb]

Your suggestion is to make it easier for people to use deprecated and bad practise code. My response was:

I say remove the option to insert blank links completely

Target blank is bad practice, making it easy to use it is a bad idea.

FWIW, the Back button is the most used aspect of the browser user interface, and the easiest to teach, my biggest objection to forcing new windows/tabs is that it stops back from working.

(sorry if my actual reply was buried a bit, stinking headcold all week, brain not work)

Regarding what should be done for general posting, I'd say leave it--most readers will know how to open a new tab themselves (middle clicking or ctrl+click or right click select) if they want one, those that don't are the most likely to be confused by forced new windows. I, personally, have a tendency to not read blogs or sites that put external links in new windows, and I loath it for internal navigation.

The really stupid are sites still using framesets for navigation, but that force new windows for all links, with badly coded framesets leaving orphan pages. Someone didn't do any testing for those sites--still find them on occasions.

[bitterlawngnome]

From the perspective of my mom thought - matgb has a point - it would confuse the hell out of her. I've watched her get confused by it ... where did the website go? why can't I get the thingy that was there anymore? and tabs is beyond her skills. so when you're designing sites for "naive" users you have to take that into account. but plain vanilla link is not the answer either, cause that same class of users has trouble with the "back" button, too.

in short I don't know what the solution might be.