Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #12689 > unrolled thread

onkeydown and onkeyup

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-13 22:35 -0700
    Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-13 22:40 -0700
    Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Norman Peelman <npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com> - 2012-03-14 17:59 -0400
      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 15:10 -0700
        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-14 17:57 -0700
          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 19:39 -0700
    Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "J.R." <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2012-03-14 23:53 -0300
      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 20:26 -0700
      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-14 22:13 -0700
        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 22:40 -0700
          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-15 08:25 -0700
            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "J.R." <groups_jr-1@yahoo.com.br> - 2012-03-18 13:07 -0300
              Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-19 00:05 -0700
            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-03-19 09:54 -0700
              Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-19 12:37 -0700
                Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-19 20:53 +0000
                  Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-19 16:20 -0700
                    Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-03-20 12:12 +1100
                      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-19 18:45 -0700
                        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> - 2012-03-20 17:17 +1100
                          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-20 16:37 -0700
                            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-20 19:25 -0700
                      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Dr J R Stockton <reply1212@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-21 19:27 +0000
                        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-21 19:19 -0700
                    Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-22 16:06 +0000
                      Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-22 09:59 -0700
                        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-22 18:10 +0000
                          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2012-03-22 19:19 +0000
                            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Mike Duffy <Use_guestbook_page@website.in.sig> - 2012-03-23 01:44 +0000
                          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-22 12:36 -0700
                            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2012-03-23 09:05 +0000
                Re: onkeydown and onkeyup "Mel Smith" <med_cutout_syntel@aol.com> - 2012-03-19 15:49 -0700
        Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-16 12:59 +1100
          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-15 21:58 -0700
            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-16 18:13 +1100
              Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 08:11 -0700
                Re: onkeydown and onkeyup John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2012-03-16 16:58 +0000
                  Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-16 12:05 -0700
          Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Dr J R Stockton <reply1211@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> - 2012-03-17 19:13 +0000
            Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> - 2012-03-18 12:46 +1100
              Re: onkeydown and onkeyup David Mark <dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> - 2012-03-17 19:13 -0700
              Re: onkeydown and onkeyup Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-03-17 23:27 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#12939

On Mar 20, 2:17 am, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 18:45:51 -0700, in comp.lang.javascript Gene
> Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <42ofm75m7ebka6m94r2f455q1msr8e3...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >| On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:12:10 +1100, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au>
> >| wrote:
> >|
> >| >On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:20:42 -0700, in comp.lang.javascript Gene
> >| >Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net>
> >| ><l3ffm75n19ptorsof3jjr257t1vomb0...@4ax.com> wrote:
> >| >
> >| >>| On 19 Mar 2012 20:53:19 GMT, "Evertjan."
> >| >>| <exjxw.hannivo...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> >| >
> >| >[snip]
> >| >
> >| >>| >Only group 1 should, at your peril, be allowed to bypass the common
> >| >>| >habits of web-browser use.
> >| >>|
> >| >>|      Things can change for group 2 as well.  Pad systems are an
> >| >>| example of this.
> >| >>|
> >| >>| >Even then, If I access my "group 1" page, say after a year, I have to
> >| >>| >reread the code to understand what I ment to be the effect in when I
> >| >>| >wrote the code.
> >| >>|
> >| >>|      Possibly, that is, as has been the case for me more than once,
> >| >>| you have not had to look at the code for quite some time, because it
> >| >>| has just worked and there has been no need to change it during that
> >| >>| time.  That suggests that the original design worked quite well.
> >| >
> >| >I think that you are missing the point.
> >|
> >|      No.
> >|
> >| >Say, for example, there is a security threat identified within
> >| >javascript. The IT department disables javascript in the browsers.
> >|                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >|      L'état, c'est moi.  Part of it anyway.
> >|
> >| >Now when the users visit your page(s) they will be forced to use the
> >| >browsers default behaviour - not your well-crafted scripting.
> >|
> >|      Not going to happen.
>
> Hmmm famous last words...
>

Indeed.  To paraphrase a line from an old movie:-

"Every time you go to write a good script, there are fifty ways can
screw it up. If you can name twenty-five of them, you're a genius (and
you ain't no genius)."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12942

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:37:11 -0700 (PDT), David Mark
<dmark.cinsoft@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 20, 2:17 am, Jeff North <jnort...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

[snip]

>> Hmmm famous last words...

>Indeed.  To paraphrase a line from an old movie:-
>
>"Every time you go to write a good script, there are fifty ways can
>screw it up. If you can name twenty-five of them, you're a genius (and
>you ain't no genius)."

     Actually, I am a genius.  I wish that meant that I was always
right.  What it means is that I see things that others do not.
Sometimes, this insight leads me forward to victory, and sometimes, it
is a waste of time.  So I try.  So far, pretty good on this one.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12970

In comp.lang.javascript message <vtlfm7pdajfc012vf0t10k5dpq4cbt8qhf@4ax.
com>, Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:12:10, Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au>
posted:

>Remember, javascript is there to enhance the user experience. If
>javascript is disabled then the user shouldn't see too much of a
>difference with the web page(s).

That is reasonably true for public-facing advertising and sales pages.
But there is more to the world than that.  AIUI, people are *paid* to
use Gene's pages.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  IE8 FF8 Op11 Sf5 Cr15
   news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12976

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:27:45 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
<reply1212@merlyn.demon.co.uk.not.invalid> wrote:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <vtlfm7pdajfc012vf0t10k5dpq4cbt8qhf@4ax.
>com>, Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:12:10, Jeff North <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au>
>posted:
>
>>Remember, javascript is there to enhance the user experience. If
>>javascript is disabled then the user shouldn't see too much of a
>>difference with the web page(s).
>
>That is reasonably true for public-facing advertising and sales pages.
>But there is more to the world than that.  AIUI, people are *paid* to
>use Gene's pages.

     Well, we have not gotten to production yet, but it will happen.
If Second System Effect does not get us.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12982

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 20 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan:
> If you did not
> keep trying to stomp me down to doing it your way, I would not keep
> posting my view.
> 
>      I believe that it is important to consider more than one way of
> doing things.  Questioning comfortable things can be the start to
> getting something better, or it can provide reasoned argument for why
> the extant way is good.
 
[...]

>      Your personal need to stomp on someone doing things differently
> is not terribly important. 

"stomp down" in slang English seems to be an attack when you are down 
already. [In Dutch "stomp" means "blunt"].

Do you feel down on the ground already?

It seems you do not want to conduct a discussion on it's contents,
and see bona fide points that you perhaps do not agree with as personal 
attacks.

Why this paranoia?

Discussions where the parties agree about the subject are not usefull and 
are only fruitfull inside sects where conflicting views are kept away 
forcefully.

Shall we go back to the subject at hand, 
javascript discussion on the scale of a usenet NG?


-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12984

On 22 Mar 2012 16:06:50 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 20 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> Evertjan:
   ^^^^^^^^
     You misattributed this to you when you were replying to me.

>> If you did not
>> keep trying to stomp me down to doing it your way, I would not keep
>> posting my view.
>> 
>>      I believe that it is important to consider more than one way of
>> doing things.  Questioning comfortable things can be the start to
>> getting something better, or it can provide reasoned argument for why
>> the extant way is good.
> 
>[...]
>
>>      Your personal need to stomp on someone doing things differently
>> is not terribly important. 
>
>"stomp down" in slang English seems to be an attack when you are down 
>already. [In Dutch "stomp" means "blunt"].
>
>Do you feel down on the ground already?

     No.  Perhaps you might consider that I know English rather better
than you do.  It is, after all, my native language.  Something need
not be down to be stomped.

>It seems you do not want to conduct a discussion on it's contents,
>and see bona fide points that you perhaps do not agree with as personal 
>attacks.

     When you keep posting as if my way is wrong period, you are not
discussing things on merits but conducting attacks.

>Why this paranoia?

     This statement is a personal attack.  I demand an apology.

>Discussions where the parties agree about the subject are not usefull and 
>are only fruitfull inside sects where conflicting views are kept away 
>forcefully.
>
>Shall we go back to the subject at hand, 
>javascript discussion on the scale of a usenet NG?

     You mean rather than calling me paranoid?  I have been discussing
JavaScript.  Your post that I am replying to here is full of needling
attacks.  Pot, kettle, black.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12988

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 22 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
> Perhaps you might consider that I know English rather better
> than you do. It is, after all, my native language.

How can I?
I don't know if it is your native language, 
like you don't know if it is mine. 

> Something need not be down to be stomped.

I think it has to. In any case, "stomped", used this way, is not mainline 
English in my English world, it must be your local slang. Or it might be 
that your English is not as standard as you think it is?

>  When you keep posting as if my way is wrong period, you are not
> discussing things on merits but conducting attacks.

No, that is called discussion.

Would you rather discuss with me things we agree upon a priori?
That would be a waste of time and effort indeed.

>> Why this paranoia?
> 
> This statement is a personal attack. 

Paranoia indeed. 

>  I demand an apology.

Demanding something on usenet. ;-)

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12998

In article <XnsA01EC31316AF7eejj99@194.109.133.133>,
 "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

> Gene Wirchenko wrote on 22 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
> > Perhaps you might consider that I know English rather better
> > than you do. It is, after all, my native language.
> 
> How can I?
> I don't know if it is your native language, 
> like you don't know if it is mine. 
> 
> > Something need not be down to be stomped.
> 
> I think it has to. In any case, "stomped", used this way, is not mainline 
> English in my English world, it must be your local slang. Or it might be 
> that your English is not as standard as you think it is?

Mmmm no, not the case actually. I agree its a relatively unusual word, 
less likely perhaps to be seen on Usenet, but definitely common to both 
sides of the pond (with the same meaning, near as I can tell).

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13004

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote in
news:timstreater-ED8825.19192322032012@news.individual.net: 

> In article <XnsA01EC31316AF7eejj99@194.109.133.133>,
>  "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>> I think it has to. In any case, "stomped", used this way, is not
>> mainline English in my English world, it must be your local slang. Or
>> it might be that your English is not as standard as you think it is?
> 
> Mmmm no, not the case actually. I agree its a relatively unusual word,
> less likely perhaps to be seen on Usenet, but definitely common to
> both sides of the pond (with the same meaning, near as I can tell).


Ask Dr. Stockton. Usually he has an opinion regarding English word usage.

I cannot ask him because I think he put me in his bozo bin some time back.

-- 
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13001

On 22 Mar 2012 18:10:36 GMT, "Evertjan."
<exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 22 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>> Perhaps you might consider that I know English rather better
>> than you do. It is, after all, my native language.
>
>How can I?
>I don't know if it is your native language, 
>like you don't know if it is mine. 
>
>> Something need not be down to be stomped.
>
>I think it has to. In any case, "stomped", used this way, is not mainline 
>English in my English world, it must be your local slang. Or it might be 
>that your English is not as standard as you think it is?

     But note that I wrote "stomped down", not just "stomped".  If it
is going to go down, it must be up now.

>>  When you keep posting as if my way is wrong period, you are not
>> discussing things on merits but conducting attacks.
>
>No, that is called discussion.

     No.  One can discuss without continual snipes at how someone is
wrong.

>Would you rather discuss with me things we agree upon a priori?
>That would be a waste of time and effort indeed.

     Yes.  It would not be a waste of time.  You probably have
additional insights that I could add to my arsenal.

>>> Why this paranoia?
>> 
>> This statement is a personal attack. 
>
>Paranoia indeed. 

     Claiming someone is insane is a personal attack.

>>  I demand an apology.
>
>Demanding something on usenet. ;-)

     Well, yes, just as I would demand an apology from a person for
something done in person.  The apology is for the offense, and the
offense is what it is regardless of the medium of delivery.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13006

Gene Wirchenko wrote on 22 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:

> On 22 Mar 2012 18:10:36 GMT, "Evertjan."
> <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> wrote:
> 
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote on 22 mrt 2012 in comp.lang.javascript:
>>> Perhaps you might consider that I know English rather better
>>> than you do. It is, after all, my native language.
>>
>>How can I?
>>I don't know if it is your native language, 
>>like you don't know if it is mine. 
>>
>>> Something need not be down to be stomped.
>>
>>I think it has to. In any case, "stomped", used this way, is not
>>mainline English in my English world, it must be your local slang. Or
>>it might be that your English is not as standard as you think it is?
> 
>      But note that I wrote "stomped down", not just "stomped".  If it
> is going to go down, it must be up now.

If you stomp [down], you  trample heavily or violently on someone. 
<http://www.answers.com/topic/stomp>

and I am not in anger
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stomp>
<http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/stomp>

"stopm down" is not even in these dictionaries, so I suppose it is local 
[stateside?] slang, possibly heard in Britain only on the telly showing 
Hollywood B-footage.

You cannot do that to a person standing, unless you are a giant.
Well, I am not a giant, and I suppose you are not mouse-size.

But you are wrong, I did not stamp on you, that is just and may-be your 
perception.
 
>>>  When you keep posting as if my way is wrong period, you are not
>>> discussing things on merits but conducting attacks.
>>
>>No, that is called discussion.
> 
>      No.  One can discuss without continual snipes at how someone is
> wrong.

That is your perception, which I call paranoia.

>>Would you rather discuss with me things we agree upon a priori?
>>That would be a waste of time and effort indeed.
> 
>      Yes.  It would not be a waste of time.  You probably have
> additional insights that I could add to my arsenal.

No, I don't want to fight, I am not speaking in military terms.
 
>>>> Why this paranoia?
>>> 
>>> This statement is a personal attack. 
>>
>>Paranoia indeed. 
> 
>      Claiming someone is insane is a personal attack.

Being your perception that paranoia means insane.
Quod non here.

But even claiming that somone is insane, quod non here, 
is a statement of perceived fact, not an attack.

>>>  I demand an apology.
>>
>>Demanding something on usenet. ;-)
> 
>      Well, yes, just as I would demand an apology from a person for
> something done in person.  The apology is for the offense, and the
> offense is what it is regardless of the medium of delivery.

Good that you take back your demand

The offence is only as perhaps perceived, not as ment nor as uttered.

Shall we go back to Javascript matters?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12909

Gene said:

>     The particular use case addressed by my <Enter> filtering is
> people accustomed to pressing <Enter> to terminate an input.  I do not
> want that to result in a form submit.

    Neither do I.  My user want the <Enter> key to move to (what we both 
consider to be) the next logical input field.  As an example, in *my* case I 
have a vertical column of phone numbers and email addresses, that she will 
frequently be entering/modifying.  She should move up/down thru these fields 
so as not to drive herself 'bananas' moving her hand off/on the mouse to 
click to change focus.

>     Your code appears to be just control focus management.  (I could
> be missing something.)  I have saved it in case I need to revisit the
> area, but I need more than that.  Some of my keyboard event handling
> is for control values.  (I have some neat code for date entry.  Well,
> I think it is neat.)

    That set of code is meant to allow the user to move logically up and 
down and sideways thru the input fields in a quick, efficient manner (using 
<tab>,<shift-tab>, <up arrow>, <down arrow>, <home>, <end>, etc

    To submit she *must* deliberately focus (using her mouse)  on the 
<Validate/Submit> button -- where I go into action examining/validating the 
complete set of input fields. and using my Red/Yellow/Green backgrounds to 
praise or chastise her :))


-Mel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12782

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:13:55 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>     I can filter <Enter> in IE 9.  I want to avoid having a form be
>submitted that way.
>[...]

Gene, it sounds a lot like you are enforcing non-web data entry on web
browsers. This means that anyone used to using web applications that
behave in the standard way will have problems with your data entry
restrictions.

As a simple example, relating to trapping the enter key, any user who
knows that they can enter just the required fields (correctly) and then
press enter to submit the form will be frustrated when they discover
that they need to either tab (if allowed!) through to the submit button,
or take their hand off the keyboard and locate the mouse before clicking
on the submit button. I get this on some websites, and it is very
annoying. Annoyed users make mistakes, often ones that data validation
tests cannot pick up.

If you want to prevent users submitting incomplete forms, catch the
submit event on the form and validate the data. You can then prevent the
default action for the event[1][2][3] if the data are invalid /
incomplete.

Regarding focus/blur and trapping users in fields, that has long been
seen as a Bad Idea in web data entry. There are many things that can
cause a field to lose focus, including (off the top of my head):

* the user tabbing away
* the user using the mouse to click in another field
* the user clicking on a non-field part of the page
* the user tapping (accidentally?) on a touch pad
* the user switching to another window (some browsers/OS)
* a bloody annoying "look at me" script/applet/widget stealing focus

Some of those events can put your script into a loop if you're not
careful, where the only escape is closing the browser, and thus losing
the data entered. That can really annoy users. They are then even more
likely to make mistakes.

Realise that the user may have a very legitimate reason for leaving a
field, e.g. to go copy data from elsewhere to paste into that field.
It's bad form to stop them doing that.

As an alternative, look at some other ways that data validation errors
are handled on the web. I like the style of this one (am not suggesting
you give up and use jQuery, just examine the style):

http://jquery.bassistance.de/validate/demo/

Here, the user is given feedback but is not hamstrung by "you can't tab"
or "you can't press enter to submit".

Please realise that none of us here are telling you "you can't do that",
because obviously you can and, to a degree, have. But experience has
shown that there are better ways, and we want you to consider them
before your web-savvy users revolt and come after you with sharp objects
:)

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/event.preventDefault
[2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff975460(v=vs.85).aspx
[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms534372(v=vs.85).aspx
-- 
Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
"Let the laddie play wi the knife - he'll learn"
- The Wee Book of Calvin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12784

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:59:29 +1100, Ross McKay
<au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:13:55 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>     I can filter <Enter> in IE 9.  I want to avoid having a form be
>>submitted that way.
>>[...]
>
>Gene, it sounds a lot like you are enforcing non-web data entry on web
>browsers. This means that anyone used to using web applications that
>behave in the standard way will have problems with your data entry
>restrictions.

     And it means that people used to a non-Web interface get to
continue being comfortable.

>As a simple example, relating to trapping the enter key, any user who
>knows that they can enter just the required fields (correctly) and then
>press enter to submit the form will be frustrated when they discover
>that they need to either tab (if allowed!) through to the submit button,
>or take their hand off the keyboard and locate the mouse before clicking
>on the submit button. I get this on some websites, and it is very
>annoying. Annoyed users make mistakes, often ones that data validation
>tests cannot pick up.

     The current system has the equivalent of this and works quite
nicely.  Why change and confuse them?

     If you suggest that the non-Web users will not be confused by the
change, I will suggest the Web denizens would not be either.  If you
then argue that non-Web users are more mentally flexible than Web
users, I will not argue with you, but I might pass the compliment
along.  <BEG>

>If you want to prevent users submitting incomplete forms, catch the
>submit event on the form and validate the data. You can then prevent the
>default action for the event[1][2][3] if the data are invalid /
>incomplete.

     I do that, too.

>Regarding focus/blur and trapping users in fields, that has long been
>seen as a Bad Idea in web data entry. There are many things that can
>cause a field to lose focus, including (off the top of my head):
>
>* the user tabbing away

     Which is when I want to check the field.

>* the user using the mouse to click in another field

     Which is when I want to check the first field.

>* the user clicking on a non-field part of the page

     I am fine with validation being done then.

>* the user tapping (accidentally?) on a touch pad

     No touchpad is being used.  Is this like the previous case?

>* the user switching to another window (some browsers/OS)

     I am fine with the validation being done then.  The other window
does get the focus.

>* a bloody annoying "look at me" script/applet/widget stealing focus

     What script/applet/widget?  It is just an alert box.

>Some of those events can put your script into a loop if you're not
>careful, where the only escape is closing the browser, and thus losing
>the data entered. That can really annoy users. They are then even more
>likely to make mistakes.

     I am quite careful.  I have put a lot of effort into figuring it
out so that it works well.  A co-worker tried to break my test page in
IE 9 and could not.

>Realise that the user may have a very legitimate reason for leaving a
>field, e.g. to go copy data from elsewhere to paste into that field.
>It's bad form to stop them doing that.

     Realise that I may have a very legitimate reason for wanting
things the way I am working on.

>As an alternative, look at some other ways that data validation errors
>are handled on the web. I like the style of this one (am not suggesting
>you give up and use jQuery, just examine the style):
>
>http://jquery.bassistance.de/validate/demo/
>
>Here, the user is given feedback but is not hamstrung by "you can't tab"
>or "you can't press enter to submit".
>
>Please realise that none of us here are telling you "you can't do that",
>because obviously you can and, to a degree, have. But experience has
>shown that there are better ways, and we want you to consider them
>before your web-savvy users revolt and come after you with sharp objects
>:)

     I do not think that that is an issue.  If I really had to dike
out the validation, it would be fairly easy.  I should experiment with
that in a bit.  Thank you for the suggestion.  If it works that
easily, I may have the best of both worlds.

>[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/event.preventDefault
>[2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff975460(v=vs.85).aspx
>[3] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms534372(v=vs.85).aspx

     I will have a look.  Thank you for the links.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12786

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:58:39 -0700, Gene Wirchenko wrote:

>[...]
>     If you suggest that the non-Web users will not be confused by the
>change, I will suggest the Web denizens would not be either.  If you
>then argue that non-Web users are more mentally flexible than Web
>users, I will not argue with you, but I might pass the compliment
>along.  <BEG>

Fair enough. You obviously work with smarter and more tolerant people
than I ever have :)

>[...]
>>* the user clicking on a non-field part of the page
>
>     I am fine with validation being done then.
>
>>* the user tapping (accidentally?) on a touch pad
>
>     No touchpad is being used.  Is this like the previous case?

Many notebook computers have touchpads for use in place of a mouse, and
it's amazing what can trigger them to place focus somewhere other than
where you want them to.

>[...]
>>* a bloody annoying "look at me" script/applet/widget stealing focus
>
>     What script/applet/widget?  It is just an alert box.

I've seen cases where the banner or sidebar on a web application has
suddenly had an annoying widget added to it by "corporate" or the
equivalent, and sometimes they do nasty things like steal focus or mess
up your tabindex. Same thing with public-facing sites, but worse because
"marketing" get in on the act too, and they tend to perpetrate all kinds
of evil on web pages.

>[...]
>     I am quite careful.  I have put a lot of effort into figuring it
>out so that it works well.  A co-worker tried to break my test page in
>IE 9 and could not.

Be prepared to test each application with each new version of your
deployed browser (and maybe get ahead of the game by playing with a beta
of IE10). The situation can change. Taking a less interventionist
approach makes for less pain when the event flow in a new browser
differs from previous versions.

I've no doubt that you can be successful with your approach (as I've
been there and done it in the past), for a limited set of browsers. Just
be aware of those limitations.
-- 
Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
"The documentation and sample application having failed me,
 I resort to thinking. This desperate tactic works, and I
 resolve that problem and go on to the next"
 - Michael Swaine,  "Programming Paradigms",  Dr Dobb's Journal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12792

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:13:58 +1100, Ross McKay
<au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

>I've no doubt that you can be successful with your approach (as I've
>been there and done it in the past), for a limited set of browsers. Just
>be aware of those limitations.

     It seems one has to worry about that with browsers regardless of
what one does if one goes past the basics.

     The standard browser for the app-which-will-exist is IE 9.  That
is why I am not too worried about the problem with Firefox.  I will
deal with it later.  (And if I can not, well, it only affects my
to-you-overdone validation.)  It might be something simple: I am
hoping it is that.

Sincerely,

Gene Wrichenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12802

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 at 08:11:36, in comp.lang.javascript, Gene Wirchenko
wrote:

  <snip>
>     The standard browser for the app-which-will-exist is IE 9.
  <snip>

So no-one will be using Win XP. (IE 9 is not available for XP).

  John
-- 
John Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12825

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:58:07 +0000, John G Harris
<john@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 at 08:11:36, in comp.lang.javascript, Gene Wirchenko
>wrote:
>
>  <snip>
>>     The standard browser for the app-which-will-exist is IE 9.
>  <snip>
>
>So no-one will be using Win XP. (IE 9 is not available for XP).

     Yes.  The company is currently updating to Windows 7.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12863

In comp.lang.javascript message <f065m7drajqg13nlbufmrvj4pminbato7h@4ax.
com>, Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:59:29, Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invali
d.invalid> posted:

>
>Gene, it sounds a lot like you are enforcing non-web data entry on web
>browsers. This means that anyone used to using web applications that
>behave in the standard way will have problems with your data entry
>restrictions.

That does not matter for what is essentially an intranet application
(even if accessible over the public internet), with users already
trained to work in that fashion and given one specific browser.

Those writing for another specific browser may well find testing also in
Current Opera useful, since it takes only two clicks to do a W3C
validation and another to see the result.

Aside : The content of SHOWTREE.HTM did move into JS-PROPS.HTM.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London UK  ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  IE8 FF8 Op11 Sf5 Cr15
   news:comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.html>.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
   <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12867

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 19:13:41 +0000, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

>In comp.lang.javascript message <f065m7drajqg13nlbufmrvj4pminbato7h@4ax.
>com>, Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:59:29, Ross McKay <au.org.zeta.at.rosko@invali
>d.invalid> posted:
>>
>>Gene, it sounds a lot like you are enforcing non-web data entry on web
>>browsers. This means that anyone used to using web applications that
>>behave in the standard way will have problems with your data entry
>>restrictions.
>
>That does not matter for what is essentially an intranet application
>(even if accessible over the public internet), with users already
>trained to work in that fashion and given one specific browser.

Sure, as long as you have a static pool of users who are never replaced
with new blood with other experiences, and who can separate their user
interface experiences with different tools sufficiently. Gene has
indicated that this is the case with his users; good enough for me.

It has not been so for the users of applications I've worked on (e.g.
just when everyone seems settled down with how the applications work,
half of them are either promoted, retrenched, or go on maternity leave
and new hires start learning afresh). IME, it is better to make
allowance for people new to a system than to constrict them with an
alien environment, and fitting in with established UI behaviour helps
keep people focussed on what they actually need to learn rather than how
to enter data.

From what Gene describes of his environment, he is actually doing all of
that, so I have no quibbles with his approach other than that it
requires more hoop jumping and may need adjustments every time a new
version of IE comes out. He's happy with that; well and good.

For users of applications I write this century, my base assumption is
that they have experience of using online forms, and *maybe* have some
other data entry experience. Many of them have little more experience
entering data into a computer than what they've gathered using web
searches, Facebook, online ordering, and banking. Thus, I try to keep
data entry UI as friendly as possible, whilst still ensuring that data
is validated before accepting it.

>Those writing for another specific browser may well find testing also in
>Current Opera useful, since it takes only two clicks to do a W3C
>validation and another to see the result.

Or use the Web Developer plugin for Firefox. (NB: I concur with your
statements on Opera, just offering the alternative; and any of Opera,
Firefox, Chrome are better than fighting with IE while writing new
code!)

>Aside : The content of SHOWTREE.HTM did move into JS-PROPS.HTM.

Applause? :)
-- 
Ross McKay, Toronto, NSW Australia
"Millions o women bring forth in pain
 Millions o bairns that are nae worth the haein"
- The Wee Book of Calvin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web