Pop-Up Blocker Will Be Turned On By Default With SP2

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,115264,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/news/article...,RSS,RSS,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div>"Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, in addition to providing a host of security enhancements, will block pop-ups in Internet Explorer by default, Microsoft says. The beta version of the Windows XP update released in December last year always included a pop-up blocker, but the feature was turned off by default. Starting with the latest test version of Service Pack 2 (SP2), called Release Candidate 1 (RC1), pop-up blocking will be activated by default, according to an update to the fact sheet for Windows XP SP2 on Microsoft's Web site."<br /><br />I truly hope that every Web designer out there who thought that a pop-up windows was a "cool" place to put navigation or another key element to the site is now re-thinking the merits of that approach. Pop-ups must die.

[dommasters]

Hurrah ! Popups stink. Good riddance. Long live the popup killer ....

[T-Will]

Oh I love pop-ups!
Like staring into the sun
They aren't annoying.

:wink:

[upplepop]

What's a pop-up? (http://toolbar.google.com)

[dma1965]

The only popups I like are the ones that happen at wet tee shirt contests.

[Master O'Mayhem]

This will be a significant update... It will break many other things too. till you turn off firewall rules etc...

[cmorris]

Good news...

Now if we could do something about those annoying "pop-over" ads that hover right over what you're trying to read until you find the miniscule "Close" button. :roll:

[Dave Beauvais]

Now if we could do something about those annoying "pop-over" ads that hover right over what you're trying to read until you find the miniscule "Close" button. :roll:
Even better than that is the Flash ad that popped up over an Amazon.com page last week and wouldn't close using the Close button or even clicking on the damn ad. I ended up making my purchase from another site. Amazon lost a $150 sale because of that ad.

[Gerard]

Good old Pocket IE, at least to PPC2002, has never once popped anything up on me, though I have used MultiIE since it's initial release. And NetFront has permissions for pop-ups and new windows opening links in the options, so you can choose to let them happen, but by default it'll always ask first. Just two of the many reasons I find the Pocket PC a superior browsing experience. I have to chuckle when my wife calls from the kitchen with panic in her voice, asking me to help shut down cascading pop-ups she's tripped over on some site or other. She's using a notebook, still thinks the PPC is something of a toy... but who's asking who for help with their messed-up web experience? :)

[njb42]

I've been using SP2 beta for the last few weeks on my Tablet PC, and the popup blocking is IMHO one of the best new features of IE. The implementation is superb, better than any of the add-on popup blockers I've tried for IE. Mozilla and its derivatives have had decent popup blocking for a while now. It's nice to see MSFT finally catch up.

P.S.: The new Tablet PC Input Panel in SP2 is great too. Normally I'd never run a beta service pack, but I got jealous after reading all the glowing reviews on Tablet PC sites.

[Jonathan1]

:soapbox:
Too little, too late. I stopped using Internet Exploder about 5 month ago and converted over to Phoenix which then turned into FireBird that is now FireFox. (LOL Identity crisis anyone?) and couldn’t be happier. This is the first time I’ve actually used an alternative browser in earnest. (I’ve dabbled with Mozilla, Opera, and Navigator all of which IMHO suck big time.) Quite honestly I’m loving every minute of it. Zero integration into the OS means that I don’t have to worry nearly as much about any patches released for FireFox which is a godsend. The one downside? There is a very small handful of sites that won’t work with anything other then Imploder. I can’t use MSN.com for some items like streaming media or carpoint.com but that’s just **** programming on their part. It’s just as easy to go to other web portals as it is with MS. So screw them. If they are going to close off their sites like they tried to a few years back.
MSN.com shuts out non-Microsoft browsers (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-274944.html)
They were obviously testing the waters to see how far they could go but realized they were going to get the smackdown from the media so...oops sorry folks....
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-274980.html]Microsoft backpedals on MSN browser block

The best feature on FireFox is the total and complete decimation of any type of Adware/spyware. It’s next to impossible to get it since most of this software is propagated through popups something. It’s taken MS what? 4+ years to play catchup to other browsers in something as simple as a popup blocker. Will it take another 4 years to get tabbed browsing installed by default? What everyone feared has happened. Zero forward momentum for browser development. How long has IE been stuck on 6.0? 2 years? 3 years? All we’ve gotten is the IE patch of the month.
An now what is this rumor that Microsoft won’t be releasing browsers on older platforms anymore?!! So only Longhorn will get IE 6.5 or 7.0. What happened to the FREE browsers that Microsoft was so generous to give out during its battle against Netscape? :|

*gets down off his soapbox*

[theone3]

Now if we could do something about those annoying "pop-over" ads that hover right over what you're trying to read until you find the miniscule "Close" button. :roll:
Even better than that is the Flash ad that popped up over an Amazon.com page last week [b]and wouldn't close[/i] using the Close button or even clicking on the damn ad. I ended up making my purchase from another site. Amazon lost a $150 sale because of that ad.The ironic thing is that you probably can't even remember what it was advertising :?

And the bad thing about this is that they'll just find another, more obtrusive method of getting your attention. believe me, there are LOTS! :cry: :roll:

[Jonathan1]

Now if we could do something about those annoying "pop-over" ads that hover right over what you're trying to read until you find the miniscule "Close" button. :roll:
Even better than that is the Flash ad that popped up over an Amazon.com page last week [b]and wouldn't close[/i] using the Close button or even clicking on the damn ad. I ended up making my purchase from another site. Amazon lost a $150 sale because of that ad.


Try FireFox and going into options -> Extensions - > Add new extention. It will take you to mozilla's site where you simply click on the item called adblocker. Description:



Adblock is a content-blocking module for the Mozilla and Firefox browsers. It is both more robust and more precise than the built-in image blocker.

Once installed it's a snap to filter elements at their source-address. Just right-click: Adblock: done. Filters use either the wildcard character (*) or full Regular Expression syntax. A list pane shows at-a-glance what has or hasn't been blocked. Scripts, backgrounds, even Flash — anything can be caught. Plugin-media sport floating tabs for one-click filtering. A special shortcut quick-hides any element on the page. And, if an ethical urge should overwhelm, just tap the keys and Adblock toggles off — it's that easy.

You can specify specific domains or even directories suck as */ads/* to filter content from. And yes you can filter even flash ads. But that poses a moral dilemma since sites stay afloat with banners and ads. I ONLY filter content form locations I know that are killing my web experience. Example there are a few sites that whoever they have for ad streaming it slows the entire site down when it loads so I simply filter any content from that server. And always kill any flash animation. Ack. Nothing worse then trying to read a site with 15 ads flashing at you.

[theone3]

check out www.avantbrowser.com

it has an ad blocker, a popup blocker, multi window browser, intergrated google search and runs using the IE shell. It also takes no time to load. (you can turn off the splash screen)

[Venturello]

Anyone want to take bets how long will it take for websites to find a way around this? Remember, there are many legit uses for popups, and popup blockers must allow these. If the popup AD looks like a legit window for say, your bank login web site, then how is windows going to tell?

I use Netcaptor and it works great, but still an ocasionall popup ad happens. Love their method of 'allowing' a pop up when pressing CTRL for the ocassional legit popups that are blocked.

[manywhere]

Good news...

Now if we could do something about those annoying "pop-over" ads that hover right over what you're trying to read until you find the miniscule "Close" button. :roll:
No! Not any more of them!! I saw them on Autosport.co.uk's website last year and immediately stopped visiting their website.

Sheesh, destroying their own material with ads... :?

[dannyoneill]

I have never seen a legit use of a pop up, there always trying to sell me an X10 camera or a credit card. How about the classic "Congratulations, you are the 1 millionth person to visit, click here to claim your prize!".

If a pop up was a person, it would have been shot by now.

[jizmo]

I have never seen a legit use of a pop up, there always trying to sell me an X10 camera or a credit card. How about the classic "Congratulations, you are the 1 millionth person to visit, click here to claim your prize!".

If a pop up was a person, it would have been shot by now.

If it was just advertisements trying to sell something, it wouldn't be that bad.

But don't you just feel a little bit offended by the fact that most of them are disguised as system notices or as a forged winning messages? It's just arrogant what advertisers are allowed to do on the net do to get some money. The amount of lying that you get while surfing the net for hour of two is depressing. It's wrong, it's underestimating people and really downright insulting.

Instead of going after citizens on the web the authoritaties could do something to get these arrogant slickers that seem to have no rules whatsoever. Seems like making money justifies everything for some people :razz:

/jizmo

[medic119]

Pop Up blocking is great and so is tabbed browsing. Yes, I am a Firefox convert. But more than any of thatI would just like to see IE catch up to the web standards in place! That way I wouldn't have to design sites to work around the non-compatibility issues in IE.

[Mojo Jojo]

...I have never seen a legit use of a pop up...

In most consumer websites, no, the need for pop-ups is very small. However there is a real life use that is now going to be affected.

I work for a fortune 500 company on a secure website for our agents and we use pop-ups to allow a form of multitasking between web apps. This allows them to be in multiple areas gathering client information or lookin up product information without having to shut one of them down. One thing to remember is a pop-up is just a reduced sized browser window.

Most blockers remove all ability to dynamically open a new browser window, thus forcing them into one work path or forcing the user to open a new window, relog in and open a new secured session, re-navigate to the new area.

Think of it like Palm multitasking versus PPC.

So yes, there are legitimate uses for popuping up windows, but it has been abused by those looking to make a buck. Fortunately we can require them to turn off blockers. They will just grumble alot.

[greenmozart]

"Kill pop-ups" has become the latest mob anthem. How many people REALLY understand the effect this could have on web development and existing LEGITIMATE uses of the technology? Like Mojo jojo said, there are plenty of legitimate uses of "pop-up like" windows... even PPC Thoughts uses them to open external links in a new browser window. This is a GOOD thing - you don't want to send your visitors away from your site where you lose total control of their navigation, secure sessions, etc. It's those that abuse the technology that are going to ruin it for the rest of us.

Let's have a little perspective on the debate here, people. I agree that BAD pop-ups should be destroyed, but don't you dare take away my choice as a consumer or my effectiveness as a web designer/developer by limiting the legitimate uses of a technology as a gut reaction to its abuse.

[Jacob]

greenmozart, well when most people say pop-ups they unfortunately just mean the horrible ones.

I use Firefox that has a pop-up blocker built-in, but it does allow desired pop-ups. It also allows for a white list so if the pop-up blocker blocks a pop-up you wanted, you can tell it to allow that site to bring up pop-up windows.

Since using Firefox and its earlier versions I can barely remember the last time I got an unwanted pop-up.

The overwhelmingly large percentage of uses for pop-ups is ads though so people do use the term perhaps too loosely.

[njb42]

"Kill pop-ups" has become the latest mob anthem. How many people REALLY understand the effect this could have on web development and existing LEGITIMATE uses of the technology? Like Mojo jojo said, there are plenty of legitimate uses of "pop-up like" windows... even PPC Thoughts uses them to open external links in a new browser window.

Apparently you're one of the ones who don't really understand.

The links on PPCThoughts (and elsewhere) that open in a new window are usually not popups. They're simple A tags with the TARGET attribute set to "_blank", which opens the link in a new browser window. They are not considered popups and they are not blocked by SP2 or other popup blockers.

Popup windows are created by a window.open() call in JavaScript. There are, as you and others have pointed out, legitimate uses for this. Site navigation is not one of them.

Using an onLoad popup for site navigation is just lazy coding. It's a crutch for lazy programmers who can't be bothered to insert the site navigation menu on every page, or for the ignorant ones who don't know how to use a template.

What is a legitimate use? To display secondary information without breaking up the flow of the page or presenting too much information at once. I use onClick popups to display popup help, definitions, extra details, zoomed images, etc. SP2 and others will not block these kinds of popups. They're smart enough to know that popup fired from an onClick event means the user requested the popup by clicking.

Popups created by the onLoad event of the BODY tag appear as soon as the page finishes loading. There are other ways to call window.open() without the user requesting it. These are what popup blockers live for.

It's easy enough for popup blockers to discriminate open() calls from within onClick events, which shouldn't be blocked, with those that should. Easy enough, but not all of them get it right.

This is a GOOD thing - you don't want to send your visitors away from your site where you lose total control of their navigation, secure sessions, etc.

Agreed. And there are many ways to do this without resorting to unrequested (or, dare I say it, "unsolicited") popup windows.


It's those that abuse the technology that are going to ruin it for the rest of us.

We're more in danger from designers of bad software who block all popups indiscriminately; or block all IMG tags of a certain size because they might be ads, rather than looking at the URL that served them; or block all Flash animations. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.


Let's have a little perspective on the debate here, people.

Better yet, let's have some facts in the debate. I hope I've managed to introduce a few.

[Mojo Jojo]

You have some good and correct points njb42, and as you stated 'We're more in danger from designers of bad software who block all popups indiscriminately and that is the crutch of the debate, in my opinion. I'll concede that perhaps SP2 will do it correctly, however most people do not distinguish between pop-up blockers and lump them all together. Most users do not learn how to 'unblock' certain websites and leave the blocker as the defaults.

A good portion of previous block-up stoppers were an all of nothing deal. Some have gotten better some have not. However alot of the clients I work with are the 'set & forget' or 'It came like that' people. They never update software, they never research software. What ever came on the machine when they got it is still what they have.

Early service providers pushed out blockers that were very sloppy (Net-Juno, Earthlink) and people used them. Even though some have gotten better Earthlink still pushes a pop-up blocker that ,and I quote from http://www.earthlink.net/home/software/popupblocker/totalaccessdownload/ :

“At this time, the rich media blocking feature disables all rich media content, including Macromedia Flash and Shockwave enabled Web sites, not just ads. Because Flash and Shockwave content is used by many leading Web sites, we recommend that you enable Pop-Up Blocker’s rich media blocking tool only in the event that rich media advertising is hampering your Internet experience. After activating this feature, if a Web site does not appear to be functioning correctly, you may wish to turn the rich media blocking off or add that URL to your 'Allow' list.”

While that particular quote points out the indiscriminate use of Flash blocking the idea I am trying to convey is that my faith in programmers and providers making fair and discriminate blockers is very shakey.

If I use a 'screwdriver' to make a 'Heart difibulator' it is good, if I use a 'screwdriver' to make a 'nuclear bomb' it is bad? Lets ban all 'screwdrivers' by default?

I see certain html code such as window.open as a 'tool', indifferent to good or bad. In my stand on this debate the browser leader is making a decision to restrict the uses of this 'tool' by default. I agree a user can remove this restiction if they so choose but this act becomes a hurdle to them.

Now, when I look at this debate I see people going after the wrong cause. Why not stop supporting companies who USE pop-up advertising? Why do people disassociate the content provider from the ads? The content provider or website made a choice to allow pop-up ads. The code for that pop-up is in the website itself (unless it is a virus/worm/torjan but that is for another debate).

Why not make a pop-up blocker that not only stops the pop-up but instantly moves you to a website that doesn't have pop-ups?

As for people who have pop-up navigation, is it the window.open fault or the websites fault?

Another analogy would be do you block all telephone calls so that telemarketers can't call you (but neither can your firends) or do you go after that telemarketers themselves?

[njb42]

I'll concede that perhaps SP2 will do it correctly, however most people do not distinguish between pop-up blockers and lump them all together. Most users do not learn how to 'unblock' certain websites and leave the blocker as the defaults.

I totally agree. Many, many people never explore their "Preferences" dialogs and leave almost everything at default settings. It therefore becomes even more important that software behave reasonably at those defaults.

I'm not saying SP2 does a perfect job. But I like the way its blocker works in default mode, and it allows you to change those settings in a context-sensitive way. When a popup is blocked, IE adds an unobtrusive prompt to the top of the browser window that says, "Pop-up blocked. To see this popup or additional options click here", and a little pop sound is played. It's kind of clearing its throat and saying, "If sir would care to glance in this direction..." A single click gives you a menu with choices "Show the blocked pop-up window", "Allow pop-up windows from this site", etc.

So, rather than make you hunt through the Prefs dialog for popup settings, it brings the settings to your attention when they're needed. I think it's a great piece of design.

While that particular quote points out the indiscriminate use of Flash blocking the idea I am trying to convey is that my faith in programmers and providers making fair and discriminate blockers is very shakey.

Too true. Which is why we're blessed to have such a wide range of choices in browsers, firewalls, popup-blockers, spam filters, etc. Consumer choice will win in the end.

If I use a 'screwdriver' to make a 'Heart difibulator' it is good, if I use a 'screwdriver' to make a 'nuclear bomb' it is bad? Lets ban all 'screwdrivers' by default?

You don't need to convince me! I'm a hobbyist target shooter. I really wish they'd stop trying to ban all handguns because a few people use them in the commission of crimes.

And hey, if you can make a heart defibrillator with just a screwdriver, then color me impressed. :wink:


In my stand on this debate the browser leader is making a decision to restrict the uses of this 'tool' by default. I agree a user can remove this restiction if they so choose but this act becomes a hurdle to them.

Which is why I applaud Microsoft for making it so easy to remove the popup blocker with a single click. I understand your argument with their decision to turn the blocker on by default. But IMHO their implementation, as it stands now, will make for a better browsing experience without causing too much inconvenience. It's a more "gentle" approach than I'm used to seeing in Microsoft software.


Now, when I look at this debate I see people going after the wrong cause. Why not stop supporting companies who USE pop-up advertising?

Just a few weeks ago this issue was debated at length on a mailing list I host and moderate.

On one side were a bunch of people who block all popups, banner ads, and Flash. On the other side was the creator of a very well-known and well-regarded site that gets over a million visitors a month. (I'm keeping his name and site private for now.)

My friend told these anti-ad people that advertising was the only way to keep the site going as a public resource, since the site doesn't sell anything. Someone has to pay for hosting, hardware, programming, etc. Isn't some advertising better, he asked, than seeing the site die?

The antis countered with the argument that advertising, essentially, amounted to theft of bandwidth. Some of them are still on dialup. Some browse wirelessly on plans that charge per kilobyte of traffic. By blocking ads, they say, they are merely conserving resources that were theirs to begin with.

The site creator pointed out that his site's Terms of Service (not crafted by him) prohibit visitors from blocking the ads, with possible loss of their user account if they do (although this would be difficult to enforce, practically speaking). He sympathized with their position but said that the ads were a necessary evil, and politely invited them to use another site if the ads upset them that much. (Consumer choice again!)

This guy is not an ogre. I can sympathize with his position as much as I can with those who don't want any ads at all. I don't like ads either. But as long as ads continue to generate income for the advertisers and the sites that host them, they're going to be a necessary evil. Right now we're fighting an escalating arms race between advertisers and programmers (on behalf of consumers). Whether we will eventually settle on a happy medium is uncertain.

(The same situation plays out in other media too. Advertisers hate TiVo and other PVR's because they let people skip past commercials. In the early 80's they hated VCR's for the same reason. OTOH, sometimes I hear people talk about funny or shocking TV commercials I've never seen because I TiVo'ed right past them. I feel peer pressure to stop skipping commercials!)

Why not make a pop-up blocker that not only stops the pop-up but instantly moves you to a website that doesn't have pop-ups?

Earlier you said one reason you disliked the idea of the SP2 popup blocker (I'm assuming you haven't seen SP2 first-hand) was because it took some choice out of the hands of users. Wouldn't this do the same thing? Who decides what alternate web site should be selected in this case?

What an interesting debate this is becoming! Thanks Mojo.

[Mojo Jojo]

Why not make a pop-up blocker that not only stops the pop-up but instantly moves you to a website that doesn't have pop-ups?

Earlier you said one reason you disliked the idea of the SP2 popup blocker (I'm assuming you haven't seen SP2 first-hand) was because it took some choice out of the hands of users. Wouldn't this do the same thing? Who decides what alternate web site should be selected in this case?

What an interesting debate this is becoming! Thanks Mojo.

Actually I was trying the old answer a qustion with a question route. My teachers always said this was a bad way to do things... anyways... :D

I don't actually support that idea and I don't think many would. But it is a matter of degrees in my view from the original issue. An outside program making assumptions on my behalf.

If the first step or degree is a program that dertermines when window.open is useful (or not) to me, is the next step one that determines content? Will content providers start embeding their ads on the page (retorical, they already do) and the next big thing is to remove img tags?

Call it a slippery slope but if you go down that path what your left with is might be straight text.

Lets bring this around to your firend who needs to put ads. He does so, and people in turn block them. While in the beging a lot of advertisers paid to place ads on hit count alone, you'll find that the market is changing and price is being determined on click through.

As people block more and more ads the reveneue the ads bring for the site will diminish. One could argue that pop-up blockers might HURT websites instead of help. Leaving the owner of the site in the unenviable postion of footing the bill.

If one were to dig deeper and ask my opinion. I would say that advertisments in general are the wrong model for the internet. The internet can not survive on the same model that TV or Radio does.

People have gotten used to on demand, direct access to things. Inserting ads, time delays, etc. are counter to what the internet is. Subscription models will work, providing a service to a tangable item will work where the cost of the internet is embedded into the price (online help, banking, ect) and a few other niche things like blogs where the cost is low...

Otherwise, the time of free internet is dying. People who buy ad space are paying less and less, becoming more and more demanding, and in turn killing the audience that views the site.

So back on topic... blockers... neccesary? They remind me of nuclear war. Mind you not on the same moral and ethical level, just that it is a step to mutially assured destruction. Blockers stop pop-ups, Advertisers find new ways, people find new ways to block those... etc etc... the end result however is that the content that brought us all here in the first place is what truely suffers.

It seems to me that blocking technology is a rash solution, where finding other methods that don't restrict the tools used to create content, would be a better approach. Would you pay your internet provider a dollar more a month to have no ads? (The dollar subside would go to host costs and bandwidth of content providers)

Anyways... don't blame the screwdriver and smash it with a hammer. Stop the person turning the screwdriver.

[Mojo Jojo]

I totally agree. Many, many people never explore their "Preferences" dialogs and leave almost everything at default settings. It therefore becomes even more important that software behave reasonably at those defaults.

Sorry missed a point in my previously long winded post.

I would say I rather see this option provided for the user, but the default is off. Make it a choice to turn it on. Hopefully that choice to turn it on will come from an informed user... okay stop laughing... I am serious here :D

[greenmozart]

I agree with most of what both of you are saying. Mojo made my point in his first response to your post, njb42. Several of the current pop-up blockers on the market today do not differentiate between "window.open" tags and "_blank" tags. They simply throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use a cliche. That is what I want to avoid. I appreciate your musings on the details of SP2 as I am not part of the beta and have not seen or heard any of those details prior to your post. I tend to have a gut-reaction to anything that companies (see "Microsoft", "RIAA", etc) do to restrict technology. I'm certainly not defending lazy web programmers. The simple fact is the average consumer doesn't know anything about our conversation here nor the activities their browser may take regarding pop-ups. Your explanation of how the SP2 blocker works sounds like a good approach to the issue - attempt to block only the "bad" things but always give the consumer a clear way to over-ride it without forcing him/her to edit their preferences buried in the program menus. Let's hope it all works as described.

[bjornkeizers]

I seem to recall we had a similar discussion a while ago. Someone brought up pop-up blocking and immediately some people objected on the grounds that "websites have to make money too, you know"

Well, no, they don't. Not when they're pushing their crap through a connection I'm paying for. Especially those all singing, all dancing popups, especially the Flash based ones, take ages to load and are almost impossible to close. Sometimes, they even crash my brower or my entire system.

I have several popup blockers installed. I don't care about a site making money, It's *my* internet connection. Don't like it? Fine. Find a better way to show me ads and we'll talk about not blocking those.

The way sites like Google or PPC Thoughts handle ads, that's OK with me. Text ads don't bother me, and I can live with the occasional ad banner, because I don't *have* to look at it. I tuned these out a long time ago, like every annoying background noise.

You piss off consumers, expect them to fight back.