Prev: Why do this? <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript"
Next: JavaScript A* Path Finding Prototype
From: nobody on 5 May 2008 19:02
On Mon, 05 May 2008 15:11:18 +0200, "Andreas M."
<foobar(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Am 03.05.2008 04:02 nobody(a)nowhere.net wrote
>
>> I need to pop up a modal JS-based dialog (for some reason can't use
>> popup window, much less so showModalDialog()), and I'd like to imitate
>> the system popup titlebar according to user's desktop settings
>> (classic, XP, Vista). No big deal to make it work, but how do I know
>
>Also, I think for questions like these the following groups may be more
>helpful. I am pretty sure, somewhere, deep in the MS API, there may be
>some special functions, that can help you. If I remember correctly,
>there is access to the Windows Themeing via ActiveX.
>
>microsoft.public.inetexplorer.scripting
>microsoft.public.scripting.jscript
>microsoft.public.scripting.hosting
>microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.jscript
>microsoft.public.scripting.wsh

Thanks but...
Most corporate IT or users with at least a bit of brain disable
activex - and I quite understand why. ActiveX are not only security
threat, but also a source of all sort of instability, and also
bandwidth hoggers, and so on and on and on. In other words, for this
project it's not an option.
But thanks anyway
NNN
From: nobody on 5 May 2008 19:23
On Mon, 05 May 2008 05:43:20 GMT, rf <rf(a)x.invalid> wrote:

>All places *you* have ever worked. I'll bet the advertising corporations
>have a few macks lying round.
>
>>>I wonder how many other browsers get it wrong.
>
>> The spec calls for full functionality in IE and core functionality in
>> Firefox. No other browser mentioned.
>
>Where in your original post did you say this. The only mention I see
>about browsers is "Would prefer cross browser compatility" and I have
>shown your solution the be not cross browser compatible.
Admittedly it was misleading. But then, for a mostly MS - IE only
guy, the phrase "Would be nice if this feature also worked in Firefox"
means cross-browser compatibility.
;-)
>
>>>What you persue will fail if I simply change my colour scheme. Your
>>>"dialog" will *not* look like the rest of the stuff on my desktop.
>> Corporate users rearly even know how to customize the desktop;
>
>How do you know that? I have known since Windows 3.1 how to do that and I
>was a corporate user at that time.
You don't seem to be a plain vanilla corporate user. Think "bean
counter" or "sales rep" - these usually have no clue how to do it or
even if it's possible at all. I also happened to have been worked in
a few places where access to these facilities in Windows was disabled
for all but admins, and the only available screensaver was the
corporate logo.

>
>> Anyway, if somebody has a
>> preference for some crazy mix of pink and green - that's none of my
>> business, they'll get a standard XP or Classic popup.
>
>So why bother to distinguish between classic or not? Give them a dialog
>that looks like the site, not the underlying operating system. Every time
>I see something that looks like my operating system I instantly dismiss
>it as advertising.
This app is ment only for the users who intended to get there, paid
for access rights, and they'd expect the popup screen to appear in
response to their actions (after all, that'll be put in the user
manual). But this is something to think of before applying this
technique to sites open to general public.

Anyway the hack that I posted does the job, and most importantly was
approved by the boss. Not that I like to base the logic on some
display quirks, but there's nothing else to go by, and it seems to
work reliably on all target systems.

NNN


From: The Magpie on 7 May 2008 06:57
nobody(a)nowhere.net wrote:
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 03:02:08 GMT, rf <rf(a)x.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Seamonkey gets it wrong. Safari gets it wrong.
>
> These browsers extremely rearly, if ever, are used in corporate
> environment - and corp is the targeted audience.
>
Wrong. Seamonkey is *the* most commonly used - and it is not a
browser, it is the Javascript engine.
>
> The spec calls for full functionality in IE and core functionality
> in Firefox.
>
And Firefox uses Seamonkey. One hurdle fallen already.
>
> Corporate users rearly even know how to customize the desktop;
> besides they oftentime don't have rights to do so.
>
That was perhaps true of your particular clients yesterday. What about
tomorrow?
>
> The ones who know and have sufficient rights - they most of the
> time pick Classic desktop, no color scheme, font, etc.
> modifications. Anyway, if somebody has a preference for some crazy
> mix of pink and green - that's none of my business, they'll get a
> standard XP or Classic popup.
>
So - according to your own rather silly spec - your solution already
doesn't work for some people. This *is* what we have been telling you.
From: The Magpie on 7 May 2008 06:59
nobody(a)nowhere.net wrote:
>
> Thanks but...
> Most corporate IT or users with at least a bit of brain disable
> activex - and I quite understand why.
>
Indeed they do. And your "hack" relies upon it. That's another hurdle
where it fails.
From: Jorge on 7 May 2008 08:47
> FYI : IEs marketshare is shrinking fast and steadily.

Shrinking even with dirty tricks like these : (M$ : "This behavior is
by design")

<http://www.bazon.net/mishoo/articles.epl?art_id=958>

--Jorge.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Why do this? <SCRIPT TYPE="text/javascript"
Next: JavaScript A* Path Finding Prototype