The first and only step



  • My company, who shall remain nameless, sent out an email informing us of changes to our investment service's website. Now I had to re-enroll in something-or-other. In the email was a link to the website that would tell me more.

    Once there, they listed the step-by-step instructions for how to fix my account.

    Step 1: Click the link to open the investor's website

    ...except the site didn't open in a new window, it was the current one. You can't see the rest of the steps unless you right click the link and Open In New Window/Tab.

    I know this looks like a minor WTF, but my company is in the Fortune 500 with a whole team of professional web developers who never seemed to learn about the "target" attribute of a link.



  • I was hoping it was a new type of phishing scam targetting entire staffs of people.



  • Computers now come with the manuals in a subdirectory on the hard disk.

     HOW TO INSTALL A SECOND HARD DISK

      1.  Shut down the computer.

     OK, I did that.  Now what?

     



  • The vim tutorial is actually idiotproof in this sense.  Notice the bolded '!! NOTE:'

     
                         Lesson 1.2: ENTERING AND EXITING VIM


      !! NOTE: Before executing any of the steps below, read this entire lesson!!


      1. Press the <ESC> key (to make sure you are in Normal mode).
      2. Type:                      :q! <ENTER>.
    ---> This exits the editor WITHOUT saving any changes you have made.
         If you want to save the changes and exit type:
                                   :wq  <ENTER>
      3. When you see the shell prompt, type the command that got you into this
         tutor.  That could be:     vimtutor <ENTER>
         Normally you would use:    vim tutor <ENTER>
    ---> 'vim' means enter the vim editor, 'tutor' is the file you wish to edit.
      4. If you have these steps memorized and are confident, execute steps
         1 through 3 to exit and re-enter the editor.  Then move the cursor down
         to Lesson 1.3.



  • not wanting to be a smartypants, but maybe they wanted to be standards compliant, and last i checked, the 'target' attribute was not on the html 'strict' list. ;)
     

     





  • [quote user="Anakha"]

    not wanting to be a smartypants, but maybe they wanted to be standards compliant, and last i checked, the 'target' attribute was not on the html 'strict' list. ;)

    [/quote]

     

    Easy enough.  Leave off the target attribute, and change the instruction from "click this link" to "right-click this link and open in a new window".  Doing neither means they didn't bother testing their instructions.



  • [quote user="Manni"]

    team of professional web developers who never seemed to learn about the "target" attribute of a link.

    [/quote]

    this may not be a WTF - if they're using a strict Doctype, then they're doing the right thing:

    of course, whether the target attribute is semantic, or presentational is another issue. while i don't always agree with the W3C, they're the "law" and i can see why having valid markup is a higher priority, if this indeed the case.

    of course, if they're not using Strict doctypes, or have invalid marked, feel free to ignore my comments.

    hope that makes sense?



  • [quote user="Manni"]

    I know this looks like a minor WTF, but my company is in the Fortune 500 with a whole team of professional web developers who never seemed to learn about the "target" attribute of a link.

    [/quote]

     They might be using latest technology like xhtml 1.1 which has no target attribute...
     



  • [quote user="donazea"][quote user="Manni"]

    team of professional web developers who never seemed to learn about the "target" attribute of a link.

    [/quote]

    this may not be a WTF - if they're using a strict Doctype, then they're doing the right thing:

    of course, whether the target attribute is semantic, or presentational is another issue. while i don't always agree with the W3C, they're the "law" and i can see why having valid markup is a higher priority, if this indeed the case.

    of course, if they're not using Strict doctypes, or have invalid marked, feel free to ignore my comments.

    hope that makes sense?

    [/quote]

    Slavishly following stupid laws is never the "right thing", and the W3C doesn't rule the web anyway. There's a good reason W3C lost an enormous amount of credibility the last few years, pushing two feature-stripped standards and promoting broken junk like XML Schema, while being woefully behind the industry's real direction (the whole AJAX thing, for one, which they've only just begun the standardization process for, years after browsers stabilized on an interface on their own).



  • [quote user="PlasmaHH"]They might be using latest technology like xhtml 1.1 which has no target attribute...[/quote]

    ... WTF? 


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.