***Forum functionality poll***

[Greg Phillips]

Agree with Tom, I can learn to control click to open a new window.

Thanks Mike for the reminder.

Greg

[galis]

The Internet standards are designed for universal accessibility. A key purpose being for the design of browsers, readers for the blind, etc (interfaces). The internet standards are also designed to marry functional continuity with emerging technology.---There is no way standards can keep up with the terrain, which is the reason there are no protocol laws (only choices).

Personally I think this situation lands squarely on the quoted exception one. (And, quoted exception two is legacy, using a back button in secure login is fine, we do something similar every time we go back to the forum from youtube). Standards are not black and white, they must be interpreted and weighed for their value in context.

I too am a computer consultant. I do grid hpc networks for the pharma industry, lots of (silly) user requests, configuration management, computer system validation, QA and federal regs. I've offered my services to the club as well.

My most valuable professional advise was to "just remove user utilization barriers."

My point is, the request is not unreasonable in principal or execution. The last couple notes on this represent 450% of the effort to make the change. So, I'll back out now and save my clicks for the mouse!

[ttweed]

My point is, the request is not unreasonable in principal or execution. The last couple notes on this represent 450% of the effort to make the change.

George-
I appreciate your learned input on the issue, but how about the problem that even if the patches are applied, they would not convert existing links on the forum, but only apply to new postings? This seems to me to be an inconsistent, confusing and unacceptable outcome for all users, regardless of how they may have voted on the poll. I dare say with all the facts in the open now, many (including myself) would have voted differently.

How would you propose overcoming this obstacle? Yes, eventually, new postings would be added and come to dominate the postings, but old topics would occasionally be dredged up by a new comment being posted to an old thread, and users would have to be cognizant of the dates on each one to be able to be able to predict how a link is going to react to being clicked. Sometimes they would open a new tab, and sometimes they wouldn't, according to whether they were "pre" or "post" patch. To me, this would be extremely frustrating and initiate a worse situation than our current one--definitely NOT an improvement in the user experience.

TT

[galis]

Hi Tom,

My point is, the request is not unreasonable in principal or execution. The last couple notes on this represent 450% of the effort to make the change.

I appreciate your learned input on the issue, but how about the problem that even if the patches are applied, they would not convert existing links on the forum, but only apply to new postings? This seems to me to be an inconsistent, confusing and unacceptable outcome for all users, regardless of how they may have voted on the poll. I dare say with all the facts in the open now, many (including myself) would have voted differently.

How would you propose overcoming this obstacle? Yes, eventually, new postings would be added and come to dominate the postings, but old topics would occasionally be dredged up by a new comment being posted to an old thread, and users would have to be cognizant of the dates on each one to be able to be able to predict how a link is going to react to being clicked. Sometimes they would open a new tab, and sometimes they wouldn't, according to whether they were "pre" or "post" patch. To me, this would be extremely frustrating and initiate a worse situation than our current one--definitely NOT an improvement in the user experience.

(I wouldn't rule out programmatically changing the historical links but I don't think it is worth finding out how hard a retroactive change would be.)

For the inconsistency of new posts opening in new tab/windows while old posts do not, the worst case scenario I see is a user expecting the old behavior but experiencing the new. Another scenario might be a new user not expecting the old behavior and landing on an old post. I use the cmd/ctrl-click feature when I want to open several links from the page I'm on before leaving it. Another benefit of new windows/tabs on "3rd party link click" is the new page opens up on top---the new window/tab is in the foreground. (But you can still use the cmd/ctrl-click feature to open multiple tabs in the background.)

So, scenario one:
- Old user cmd/ctrl-clicks 3rd party link on a new page. Works as expected.
- Old user cmd/ctrl-clicks 3rd party link on an old page. Works as expected.
- Old user clicks 3rd party link on a new page. A new window/tab opens in the foreground, as expected, however the back button doesn't work. It would be bad if the old user turned off the computer at this point, but more likely they will close the window/tab. The former page comes into the foreground as if the back button where used.
- Old user clicks on 3rd party link on an old page. Might be disappointed that he's experiencing the old behavior but this is NOT a reason to avoid the new behavior. The old user might close the third party window/tab only to find he has to open a new window/tab and load up the forum again---typical of the old behavior.

In short a new user might experience the old behavior with the new system, if they reach an old page. The only inconsistency an old user will experience is a non working back button, in which case closing the window will reach the intended (back) location.

There may be some other regressions but do they have a consequence of confounded users? Or, anything of consequence?

If the new system is better than the old, it does not mean the old should not be changed because it would become inconsistant! Sure there *is* an inconsistency, but is the inconsistency being avoided because it is inconsistant? Or is the consequence being considered in context of the benefit of the change?

-George

[MikeD]

George, et all,

I am sorry that this has become such an issue and an apparent burden to everyone. We've been running version 3.x of phpBB for a number of years now, and suddenly everyone is all hot an bothered about having to right+click or CTRL+click/CMD+click to open a link in a new window. So let me point out two things, and we can (hopefully) be done with this topic.

1. It was not the forum admin team's decision to make this change. It was made by the phpBB community using their process for change management. If you do not like the decision and would like the software changed you are more than welcome to join that community and drive changes you would like to see on this forum.

2. The decision we, as a club (which includes the forum admin team and the BOD) did make was to keep this software package as stock as possible. The biggest reason for this was to prevent keeping the software in "status quo" mode. We made a number of customizations to the previous version. Which then became incompatible with newer releases. The inability to upgrade in turn exposed the forum to a mass or spam registrations, taking the forum admin team hours and hours each week to cleanup and manage.

So in short, if you want to see the software itself changed, join the phpBB Community and submit your patches or change requests there.

http://www.phpbb.com/community

Once it's been approved and included in a release, I will upgrade the software, and we can once again revisit this topic. Until then, it really is a futile discussion.


Thanks for your understanding.
Mike