Especially Ctrl+I , which is "mail this page". I'm using wordpress self hosted. So far I've found this code, not sure how to implement it or if it's old.
Please no plethora of reasons as to why you find this attempt pointless.
Really, shouldn't answer, but:
There's no reason for this, because there's always a very easy way around it. It'll probably take a lot more work than whatever you end up with's worth. If somebody has half of a computer literate mind, they probably can get past this without a problem at all.
Summary:
Don't bother
Disabling hotkeys won't stop anyone from just selecting that option from the File menu.
People will always find ways around these kinds of hacks. Turning off JavaScript, hacking the source with Firebug, Option+Click on a Mac, taking a screenshot, etc. They are completely ineffective against anyone even slightly determined to do what you don't want them to do.
You can't really do that. See this page for really good information on the portability of various key events in JavaScript across multiple browsers. You will see for one that each browser handles/responds to various key events in many different ways.
Also, most of the default browser actions (e.g. Ctrl-F, Ctrl-S) cannot be canceled if you are capturing key events. You can still detect some of them and respond, but you can't actually stop the browser from displaying the search dialog or whatever specific action is to be performed by the key combination.
Also, if someone really wants to take your page's HTML/JavaScript code or content, these methods won't stop them. The disable right click code from the link you referenced can prevent right click, but all someone has to do is disable javascript and it no longer works.
Related
I know it is impossible to completely protect his photos; I've explained that the best way to do this would be to watermark the images, but he wants some additional protection. I don't want to load my page with more JavaScript, because I feel like there are a dozen and a half ways of copying images which that script would need to handle. Is there a simpler CSS solution that will put his mind at ease?
Simon's answer is very annoying. A better solution that achieves the same thing (not able to right click on the image and save it) is to put a transparent gif on top of the image. Still won't stop determined people, but is far less annoying to your honest viewers.
Simply put, any solution that's done client-side is VERY easily worked around. You need to focus on server side solutions. Watermarks, referrer checking (making sure the referrer is the page itself, also stops hot linking in most cases), reducing the image quality perhaps..
You could make it slightly more annoying by having the images be background-images of some other element. This would only prevent the most obvious right-click>download image method.
That said, be very careful that you have an agreement, in writing, from him that states that he understands that this is simply an impediment to copying, and can easily be bypassed. The last thing you want is to be liable for not protecting his images when someone does manage to copy them.
You can make it slightly annoying by adding and overlay layer of a transparent div over the images, like so:
http://jsfiddle.net/andresilich/WHEK3/3/
Edit: of course, this is an easily circumventable option to somebody who knows what they are doing, or knows how to use the developers tools in Chrome or firebug.
From a User Interface design point of view when is it better to disable a control or to completely hide it. I have attached an example. In both case if the "Enable ASP.NET" checkbox is clicked the "Select. Net Version selector is enabled.
I would argue that it's almost always best to just disable. Hiding controls means you're leaving a portion of your functionality/configurability a mystery to the end-user. Unless there's a compelling reason to keep users in the dark, I wouldn't.
Your example of a checkbox that enables/disables or hides/unhides a dropdown box is a good one. If users aren't aware that checking the box allows them to select further options, they may never check it and find out, because they don't realize the option they're looking for is there.
Many of us, as developers, come from the "try everything" mindset when it comes to using a piece of software. Normal users don't think that way, and that's not a bad thing, either. It just means we have to keep in mind that not everybody will do what it takes to discover a piece of UI that's been hidden. Leaving it visible but disabled lets them see that there's something there for the having should they decide they want/need to use it, rather than leaving them either wondering if the software does something or never even considering that it might.
This really depends on the context of the example. In this case there is some value associated with disabling the control as it provides a visual affordance that enabling the ASP .Net checkbox will have a determinable outcome.
If the outcome of the checkbox is actually a whole series of non related suboptions or the parent control was a dropdownlist which determines which child elements become available then it would be better to hide / show only those elements that are appropriate to the current selection.
One other point, if you are describing "hiding" the controls as control.visible = false in code rather than display:none then remember that the output will actually not be rendered into the browser at all. This may be a concern if you are catering for disabled users with browsers requiring stricter accessibility requirements etc.
To me that depends on user knowledge. If the user knows what should follow I tend to give them as much information as possible so I would show it disabled. If the user is clueless as to what follows I hide as much as possible. Sometimes I do different things on user role and sometimes it depends on the average user of the application and their expected understanding of the underlying issues.
hth,
\ ^ / i l l
I prefer to disabled the control, so the user can see that he may have something to fill out. But it can be usefull to hide it if you are restricted on space.
It really depends on the situation
Running an MVC2 site against IIS7 and would like to capture more detail of how users traverse the site - ideally to the point of being able to replay even the duration between mouse clicks - feedback of where people pause and/or backtrack.
I could do this with flash but that's no longer an option. Now it's just IIS7 via asp.net f4. IIS7 _should be able to provide this via 3rd party extensions - especially for this sort of niche need. I'm willing to consider client-side .net components but this sure seems to be the responsibility of the server.
[opps...does this belong on serverfault?]
thx
justSteve. Here is a solution that we have used:
http://www.seevolution.com/
I don't think that it gives time between clicks, but it does give very detailed tracking considering it's price (I don't know if that's an issue). We have really liked it. Fantastic detail.
You could also roll your own solution. Using jQuery and the $(document).click() function, you can log when they click, and the points on the screen. Then every couple of minutes, serialize it and fire it off to the server. You can get extremely fine-grained detail that way. The nice thing with seevolution is that they've done all of the work for you already, but it probably isn't as detailed as you would like.
JMax
Maybe not the "in-house" solution you're after but we are about to implement SessionCam at my company, which seems like a pretty good match for what you're looking for. Not having actually finished implementing it yet, I can't vouch for it in terms of quality at this point - but the description of the product certainly matches.
You aren't going to be able to capture the level of detail you need using a solely server-side solution. There needs to be a degree of client-side work - whether it's in flash or javascript - to capture things such as where the mouse is hovering (for heatmaps etc).
I personally haven't used this product, but a friend of mine spoke highly of it.
Clicktale
Is it OK if everything looking OK but HTML and CSS are not valid , for CMS Admin/control panel?
Should we only consider Web-standards for site, not necessary for site-management tools?
for example
:http://example.com/wp-admin
:http://example.com/admin/
Well, the point of standards compliance is to make everything work correctly for every user. Even though admin areas are only accessible to a few select users per site, if you are building a CMS you have to consider that many, many people might use your script which would add additional users who will be needing to access those admin panels. It's best to make everything standards compliant, that's why they create them. If an admin can't get the admin panel working properly, they'll ditch the script.
I agree it may not be worthwhile to to make everything valid. As long as you've done your testing and it working then it's probably not worth the time to make everything valid.
Some validation errors matter, some don't. The spec is a bit ridiculous in its requirements in places. What is important is that all open tags are closed and they are nested correctly as if this is not done there can be many subtle errors both now and in the future. As for non-encoded entities, using rel's and targets when you shouldn't - it doesn't matter so much.
Since you (usually) can control the access to the admin area (rather than normally having every single device and platform access it) it certainly matters less. The time would probably be better spent adding more features and fixing real bugs rather than aiming for 100% compliance. Don't tell any standards advocates I said that though. :)
Is there any problem with using jquery layout plugin (there are several) to layout a page as opposed to using CSS and fixing browser compatibility issues myself?
Another problem is that the page has to fully load and download the javascript, then get rendered. This will slow down the page significantly.
The most obvious problem is that any visitor to the page using a browser with JavaScript turned off will not get the layout. If you're willing to turn away from those people, that may not be a blocking factor for you.
There can also be performance issues, delays on resizing the browser window, that sort of thing.
I'm not saying don't do it; if it's appropriate for your target audience. But look to see if you can avoid it or at least gracefully degrade if JavaScript isn't enabled. (Turn off JavaScript and come here to SO, for instance; still very usable in a read-only way.)
If doing this, continue to be sure to mark up your content in the main page (rather than only adding it dynamically) and use the most semantic markup you can, to improve your search-ability.
When your layout doesn't behave for whatever reason (and that will happen), will you be able to understand the code behind the JQuery plugin to fix it?
Invest in yourself and learn CSS properly, it's not hard, it doesn't take long and it will equip you for the future, don't just rely on plugins. Now I'm not saying never use a plug-in, but this to me seems inappropriate use