A contentious issue in the blogging community is whether a hyperlink should open a new window or replace the current page. It’s a heated debate that’s rife with outrage and moral indignation on both sides of the issue.
A while back, I decided that links in this blog should spawn new browser windows. It’s something that I thought about carefully first before making it a habit. To me it’s a usability issue. I start with the assumption that the user wants to read my article. After all, if nobody wants to read my articles, then why do I have the site in the first place? (Hmm. If nobody responds to this, then maybe I should address that issue at a later date.)
Here’s the no-spawn scenario: User is in the middle of reading my article, and clicks a link in the middle of a sentence. My article (my entire site, in fact) is replaced by the new page. If the user does too much surfing in the new site, it’s difficult or tedious to back out of it and return to the unfinished sentence. My no-spawn hyperlink is like a trap door for unsuspecting readers.
Here’s the spawn scenario: User is reading my article, clicks a link, and the new page opens in a window overtop of my site. In their detour from my ariticle, the user can click around in the new site. When they’re done, the user can close the new window and finish reading the article.
Some people feel that it’s enough that IE users can SHIFT-click (Mozilla users can CTRL-click) to spawn new windows, and that website designers shouldn’t force a new window. That’s fine for expert users who know that poorly-documented trick, but I would like to think that my readers don’t need to be experts just to browse my website. The web should be a novice-friendly place.
So… to conclude my ramble, unless your audience is comprised of highly technical types, not spawning windows makes browsing difficult for regular people.