Chad Perrin: SOB

25 February 2008

the scourge of public wireless access points

Filed under: Geek — Tags: , , , — apotheon @ 01:01

Free wireless access in “public” places — airports, coffee shops, et cetera — is really making my life difficult these days.

I’m a Firefox user. It’s not because I think Firefox is great. I don’t. I think Firefox is crap. I just think everything else out there is, in some way/shape/form, worse.

Using Firefox, I make extensive use of its tabbed browsing capability. When I shut down Firefox, I often have twenty or thirty tabs open (I had 23 open last time I shut it down). When I restart it, all those tabs reload automatically, and I can pick up where I left off.

With free wireless access in public places, on the other hand, all that comes apart at the seams. Many providers of free wireless access — coffee shops and airports in particular, lately — redirect one’s browser to a welcome screen. Sometimes this is to show you an ad before letting you see the Internet. Sometimes it’s to get you to click “OK” on some damned terms of use agreement.

I just opened up Firefox in a Panera Bread in Florida, and all but three of my 23 tabs was irrevocably lost to duplicates of the damned Panera Bread welcome screen. Fuckers.

The three that remain are the page I have set as my homepage in Firefox, one that isn’t that important, and a Wikipedia article (thus easily found again). That’s it. All it left me with was the three I was least likely to give a shit about.

So much for picking up where I left off.

Providers of free wireless network access, to give access to the Internet, listen up:

Don’t fuck with my tabs.


This really does encourage me to go somewhere else to get my coffee and get Internet access away from home. You lose business by doing this.

I’m sure no such providers are reading this, but I can’t really be arsed to let them know. I’d rather just warn others of the dangers, and quietly damage their business, with this little rant. It’s considerably less work that way.

I don’t want to have a second JavaScript-capable browser installed just to use some technically deficient moron’s idea of what constitutes reasonable public wireless network access, either, so don’t bother suggesting it.

15 February 2008

tooltips for text on the Web

Over at Lunar Ocean, Antoine Toulme commented on my use of the <acronym> tag. He was apparently not familiar with the <acronym> tag in HTML 4 and XHTML 1.x. For those who are not familiar with it, the <acronym> tag is what I used to create the tooltip effect here: HTML

Basically, it provides a roll-over tooltip effect, where pointing your mouse at the tagged text should cause a little off-colored box to appear with some alternate text in it. It is part of the standard for both HTML 4 and XHTML. Of course, I don’t think there’s any such thing as a browser that implements the entire HTML 4 or XHTML specification, so it’s almost inevitable that there are browsers that don’t support a tag like <acronym>.

Assaf commented at Lunar Ocean, correctly pointing out that at present the proposed HTML 5 standard deprecates <acronym> in favor of <abbr>, which makes perfect sense to me. There isn’t much need for both — <abbr> can serve that purpose for acronyms as well as any other types of abbreviations, and if you really need to distinguish between them, you can do so with a style class in your CSS. In addition to all that, <abbr> is less typing than <acronym>. Assaf recommends using <abbr> instead of <acronym> because of the apparently incipient deprecation of the latter tag. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story.

Not too long ago, a few of the editors and weblog writers at TechRepublic (I’m one of those writers — check out the TechRepublic IT Security weblog) were involved in a brief discussion of the support for <acronym> and <abbr> tags in IE. This came up because the subject of the <acronym> tag came up briefly in comments to one of my ITSEC articles there. It became quickly evident that there are widespread inaccurate beliefs about these two tags.

For those who aren’t familiar with it, <abbr> is basically exactly the same thing as <acronym>. The difference is that <acronym> is meant to be used for acronyms to provide alternate text that explains the acronym to the reader, and <abbr> is meant to be used for the same purpose with all other types of abbreviated text (other than acronyms).

What most of the people in the behind-the-scenes TR discussion seemed to believe, incorrectly, is that the <abbr> and <acronym> tags are both unsupported by Internet Explorer. Further, one or two of them suggested that we (the writers for TR’s weblogs) should never use either one of them, because of that lack of support. There are some problems with this reasoning, however:

  1. The <abbr> and <acronym> tags are parsed by some search engines, and taken into account when determining search keyword associations and search rankings. Thus, using these tags helps with search engine optimization.
  2. Using either of these tags in no way hurts anything. If the only difference between two versions of text is the presence or absence of these tags, go ahead and use them. Not only will it potentially help with search engine optimization, but it will also help in that — for those users who employ browsers that do support these tags — in at least some cases they lend additional usability for the website.
  3. Internet Explorer does support the <acronym> tag. It just doesn’t support the <abbr> tag.

Point 3 there bears on the comments at the Lunar Ocean post. In choosing between the <abbr> and <acronym> tags, you need to make a choice between:

  1. <acronym>: a tag that is supported by more browsers now, but may become obsolete in the future, judging by a proposed specification that may one day become a standard
  2. <abbr>: a tag that, right now, isn’t supported properly by the browser with the single biggest share of the market — and, thus, the browser used by the most potential visitors or customers at your website

I don’t advocate for using standards-noncompliant code just to cater to Microsoft Internet Explorer, of course. In fact, I use standards compliant code that breaks in IE somewhat frequently. I’m a bad boy, that way. What I do advocate is using standards compliant code that works as close to “everywhere” as you can reasonably get. In the case of <abbr> vs. <acronym>, then, the choice seems obvious to me.

When using <acronym>, however, make sure the CSS code for your website includes some styling for the <acronym> tag. In terms of general principle, this is because the dotted underline styling for the tag in Firefox is not part of the actual HTML and XHTML standards. It’s just the default styling employed by the browser. Since it’s not part of the standard, there’s no guarantee it will always be there — and, as such, you should make sure the styling is explicit in your code.

More specifically, you should explicitly style the <acronym> tag because, while Internet Explorer supports the tag according to the standard specification, it doesn’t provide default styling for <acronym> the way Firefox does. As such, in IE, <acronym> tagged text will look exactly like the rest of the text, undifferentiated from the rest — which means IE users won’t even know there’s a tooltip there to be viewed — unless you use CSS to style the tag yourself.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License