JAVA Javascript Popup Window that works with most browsers IE7+ help

[NTV]

Do you guys know how to do this?

I've checked all over google still couldn't find a solution.

Also I want the popup centered.

[billybombill]

What's this about?

If you want a browser-type window use something such as

 function popupwindow(url, title, w, h) {
  var left = (screen.width/2)-(w/2);
  var top = (screen.height/2)-(h/2);
  return window.open(url, title, 'toolbar=no, location=no, directories=no, status=no, menubar=no, scrollbars=no, resizable=no, copyhistory=no, width='+w+', height='+h+', top='+top+', left='+left);
} 
  

Source: javascript - Center a popup window on screen? - Stack Overflow

Sorry I didn't really think the word 'Window' through that much, I was thinking of a basic text window (I'm tired xD)

[Foxtrot]

I would advise you just avoid catering to IE altogether. It's such a god-awful browser.

[jMerliN]

if(isIe()) { alert('This website only runs in real browsers.'); }

[n0minal]

I would advise you just avoid catering to IE altogether. It's such a god-awful browser.

Hell no. Unfortunately IE is used by many, and will do so for years to come.

[vLife]

On the internet you barely see people using IE. Those that still do probably use it just for small browsing.

[Chris]

I would advise you just avoid catering to IE altogether. It's such a god-awful browser.

I would agree, but frankly professional clients aren't going to accept just ignoring their users that use IE. They want anything and everything to work for their users.

It's not hard to make website's compatible with the more recent IE versions, but once you run into one of the bugs, they're hard to get around without changing your website around.

[TimeBomb]

I would agree, but frankly professional clients aren't going to accept just ignoring their users that use IE. They want anything and everything to work for their users.

It's not hard to make website's compatible with the more recent IE versions, but once you run into one of the bugs, they're hard to get around without changing your website around.

Microsoft has just started getting their act together with IE9. Previous versions have a lot of issues. Apparently Microsoft was a bit late getting the memo saying that there is a global web standard that you should try to follow. W3 much?

Chris is right. Although I gauge the audience when designing websites to decide if IE compatibility is necessary or not, it may, especially to businesses, be worth it. (Does .01% of my audience use IE8 or below, or >10%?)

Backwards IE compatibility is not as difficult as it used to be. There are lots of tutorials, workarounds, and javascript libraries to make it a lot more bearable.

[jMerliN]

Microsoft has just started getting their act together with IE9. Previous versions have a lot of issues. Apparently Microsoft was a bit late getting the memo saying that there is a global web standard that you should try to follow. W3 much?

Chris is right. Although I gauge the audience when designing websites to decide if IE compatibility is necessary or not, it may, especially to businesses, be worth it. (Does .01% of my audience use IE8 or below, or >10%?)

Backwards IE compatibility is not as difficult as it used to be. There are lots of tutorials, workarounds, and javascript libraries to make it a lot more bearable.

Even in IE9 and IE10 you still need significant if/elseifs and CSS hacks to make things look the same in IE. When you're talking about real software, that's code that needs to be tested and maintained, and it probably will break when IE11 comes out or is structured in some fashion that is the result of IE getting "slightly better" each version:

if (IEVersion < 7) { ... }
else if (IE Version < 8) { ... }
else if (IE Version < 9) { ... }

The cost of this is significant. This is why we've stopped supporting IE. Yet another generation of IE and this simple, fundamental problem exists. In a world where almost everyone is using a browser as some significant portion of their day, the browser needs to be consistent. Over 75% of the browser share is self-consistent. IE is the only real outlier. You have to wonder why the fuck they pay the guys working on Trident and JScript. It's not that difficult to implement standards and be consistent with competitors. To fail at this simple task is to become irrelevant. Imagine if one of the major car manufacturers started making their cars with all non-standard parts. You know, so when you get a routine part replacement it costs TWENTY times as much for you to replace a part as it does everyone else because universal parts don't exist. That $40 part we don't wince at, enjoy paying your $800 for it. That's unacceptable. So is IE. End of story.

Yes, we have libraries that try to fill in the holes and hack around the massive and vast caverns of true epic-grade WTFery in IE, but explicit IE support beyond what normal use of libraries would provide is unacceptable from any web developers these days. It's a large amount of work for a nonexistent gain, or what we call in the industry, a waste of time.

[TimeBomb]

Even in IE9 and IE10 you still need significant if/elseifs and CSS hacks to make things look the same in IE. When you're talking about real software, that's code that needs to be tested and maintained, and it probably will break when IE11 comes out or is structured in some fashion that is the result of IE getting "slightly better" each version:

if (IEVersion < 7) { ... }
else if (IE Version > 8) { ... }
else if (IE Version >= 9) { ... }

The cost of this is significant. This is why we've stopped supporting IE. Yet another generation of IE and this simple, fundamental problem exists. In a world where almost everyone is using a browser as some significant portion of their day, the browser needs to be consistent. Over 75% of the browser share is self-consistent. IE is the only real outlier. You have to wonder why the fuck they pay the guys working on Trident and JScript. It's not that difficult to implement standards and be consistent with competitors. To fail at this simple task is to become irrelevant. Imagine if one of the major car manufacturers started making their cars with all non-standard parts. You know, so when you get a routine part replacement it costs TWENTY times as much for you to replace a part as it does everyone else because universal parts don't exist. That $40 part we don't wince at, enjoy paying your $800 for it. That's unacceptable. So is IE. End of story.

Yes, we have libraries that try to fill in the holes and hack around the massive and vast caverns of true epic-grade WTFery in IE, but explicit IE support beyond what normal use of libraries would provide is unacceptable from any web developers these days. It's a large amount of work for a nonexistent gain, or what we call in the industry, a waste of time.

While I will agree with you on most accounts in regards to IE and the developers that work on IE being pathetic in the aforementioned ways, and while I would completely agree that IE takes an abnormally frustrating amount of time to support from a web developer's perspective, I must disagree with you for calling it a waste of time.

There are millions of internet users that still use IE for various reasons. Many times, someone will not upgrade their browser, as poor and outdated as it may be, just to view your website.

As a business, you should take advantage of tools like google analytics to find out what browsers your users are using.
Statistics can be gathered that will give you a moderately solid estimate as to how much money you would gain or lose from blocking out your IE users. For many companies, the loss is not worth it, and thus they will continue to support IE.

I hate IE. I hate Trident. I completely agree with you that IE is still heavily lacking when compared to its competitors, and that it will more than likely never be as competent or consistent as its competitors. It sucks, but ignoring it is a business decision, not a developer decision.

[n0minal]

Even in IE9 and IE10 you still need significant if/elseifs and CSS hacks to make things look the same in IE. When you're talking about real software, that's code that needs to be tested and maintained, and it probably will break when IE11 comes out or is structured in some fashion that is the result of IE getting "slightly better" each version:

if (IEVersion < 7) { ... }
else if (IE Version < 8) { ... }
else if (IE Version < 9) { ... }

The cost of this is significant. This is why we've stopped supporting IE. Yet another generation of IE and this simple, fundamental problem exists. In a world where almost everyone is using a browser as some significant portion of their day, the browser needs to be consistent. Over 75% of the browser share is self-consistent. IE is the only real outlier. You have to wonder why the fuck they pay the guys working on Trident and JScript. It's not that difficult to implement standards and be consistent with competitors. To fail at this simple task is to become irrelevant. Imagine if one of the major car manufacturers started making their cars with all non-standard parts. You know, so when you get a routine part replacement it costs TWENTY times as much for you to replace a part as it does everyone else because universal parts don't exist. That $40 part we don't wince at, enjoy paying your $800 for it. That's unacceptable. So is IE. End of story.

Yes, we have libraries that try to fill in the holes and hack around the massive and vast caverns of true epic-grade WTFery in IE, but explicit IE support beyond what normal use of libraries would provide is unacceptable from any web developers these days. It's a large amount of work for a nonexistent gain, or what we call in the industry, a waste of time.

Design for other browsers at first by all means, but then what I tend to do is develop fall-backs - as opposed to work-arounds and bug fixes. For example (and to put it simply), something as simple as rounded corners - I think; "would the design be massively affected if it were to display non-rounded corners in IE?". If the answer is yes, then is when I bump into the problems, etc.