25 ms·

“Right click and save as” needs to go away

444 points by cfj 13y ago

mschuster91 13y ago
I HATE sites that force downloading! I often have a 50+ MBit/sec connection and want to be able to choose between having a PDF (e.g. a invoice - all I need is the amount and the bank data) render in the browser so I can discard it after using (here: wiring the money) and not having to do: 1) download it 2) open it 3) do what I want to do 4) delete the file (which requires me to open the download folder, locate the file and delete it). If I forget step 4, I usually end up with a clusterfuck of a download directory (mine has 20 GB already in half a year, most of it is one-off downloads!).
- btipling 13y ago
  Browsers (or site owners) could probably do a better job of differentiating links with download attributes. Maybe on mouse over show a little download cursor or something.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    In the "old times" Firefox asked me whether I wanted to download and then open, download into temp and then open, or download into a to-be-selected folder; with an addon I could force browse render as an option, too. Yet, this required two mouse clicks in the "worst case" that the default selection didn't fit. I think the best solution is: if no download attribute set and Content-Disposition is not "attachment", then render in the browser. If either condition is met, open a popup with large buttons immediately executing the action: download to default folder, download to temp (which will be deleted upon next browser start), download to specific folder, render in browser (if there's a registered handler plugin for this mimetype). Maybe add a checkbox "Open after download has finished", and maybe also add one "Try multi-stream download" (because many sites still limit single-stream bandwidth). Even more maybe, for video files add a "Preview with VLC" and fetch the required parts (header and final part of video) first, so I can stream and keep the file for later usage.
    - Too 13y ago
      Firefox still does exactly what you ask for exactly the same way it did in the "old times". Just go to Options->General->Downloads, tick Always ask me where to download files Internet Explorer also works like this practically eliminating step 1,2 and 4 from your scenario above.
  - NathanKP 13y ago
    To show an icon on hover over a link on the browser side it would require browsers to make an HTTP HEAD request for each link to see if it has the "Content-Disposition: Attachment" header. That would add a lot of overhead to the page load, so I don't think it would be added to any browser. However, it seems like a good candidate for a browser plugin for those who have fast connections and don't mind.
    - btipling 13y ago
      Note I said in case the download attribute is set on the link, in which case, no, it would not require any request, it just follows the instructions set in the HTML.
    - FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
      with the HTML5 option you could just use CSS: a[download]:after { /* add an icon or something */ }
- jonahx 13y ago
  1) I don't think your use case / preference is that common. I'd venture that most of the time a download is preferable; I know that's the case for me. 2) Even if I'm wrong about 1), it's hard to argue that there is never a good time to force a download, and so this is a useful feature to know about. I wasn't aware of it so appreciated the post.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  From the Firefox normal behaviour, I imagine it would ask you whether you wish to open the file in the OS registered handler or save it. If you tell it to use an external program, FF downloads to temp, not to the Downloads directory. So, no clusterfuck. Anyhow you are right about the lag caused by downloading the whole file.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    The problem is that FF does not read the OS list of programs (or can call the "Use OS selection for program/Open With"), but has "its own source" - on Linux, this sucks, because if I want to specify an unknown program, it's most likely in /usr/bin, which has thousands of files and so blocks the disk for a huge time while reading the file list. On Windows, it sucks too, because I have to go to c:\, then remember if the program is x64 or x86, then remember the producer of the program, hope the program files-directory is named after the producer or the software, and then find the correct .exe to open. SUUUUCKS.
- thristian 13y ago
  If you're using Firefox, you might be interested in the Open In Browser extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-browser/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-brows...
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    Yes, exactly this extension I talk about in another reply - but I don't use Firefox any more because it creates disk load and swaps heavily on a 5400rpm disk, and it locks up while waiting for disk i/o every ten seconds (every tab switch, in essence). Chrome's single-process-per-page model is better, because the OS can do proper swapping.
    - derleth 13y ago
      Interesting in that I've seen the exact opposite: Chrome hits the disk a lot harder, especially on startup, compared to Firefox.
      - mschuster91 13y ago
        This is true, the cold startup takes longer in Chrome than in FF. But if you're short on RAM (I usually hit 2-3GB usage without a browser running) and the OS starts swapping when you open tabs (I have ~30-40 open regularly), then the difference appears.
- rmk2 13y ago
  I don't know what OS you are using, but on linux, I save all of those files to /dev/shm. Since this parks it in shared memory, once I restart my computer at some point, they will be gone. The same can be done by using a tmpfs as your default download destination and a script that cleares any file older than x days etc. I basically use two download folders: ~/Dowloads/* and /dev/shm/; the first is being used for Downloads I'd like to keep, the latter for temporary files.
  - MereInterest 13y ago
    Alternatively, use /tmp, since then you won't have the file unnecessarily using RAM until the next time you reboot.
    - rmk2 13y ago
      Unless your distribution of choice implements /tmp as tmpfs, which iirc Fedora does! ;) But yes, /tmp works as well!
- cfj 13y ago
  I'm almost never on a 50+ MBit/sec connection, which brings up another point. When on a slow, data-capped connection, such as the one I'm on right now, I want to know the size of the file I'm downloading. That lets me decide if it's actually worth spending my precious bandwidth on. If not, I cancel the download. When letting the browser display the file there's no (easy) way of finding out the file size.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  Don't other browsers have a "temporary downloads" folder? For when you select "open this file with (...)" in the download dialog? Opera does. Now I finally sort of understand why people like opening PDFs in browser plugins, I suppose ... > I usually end up with a clusterfuck of a download directory (mine has 20 GB already in half a year, most of it is one-off downloads!) yeah well but that is your own fault for saving temporary downloads in a non /tmp directory. just put them somewhere where they'll get cleaned out every so often. this is a computer, you don't even have to take the trash out yourself, but it's still up to you to differentiate between "to discard" and "to keep".`
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    Windows does not have a /tmp, and Chrome doesn't offer an easy(!) way to switch download locations per download.
    - Sprint 13y ago
      Of course Windows does, $TEMP!
      - Gormo 13y ago
        You mean %TEMP%.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        That folder never gets cleared.
        Sprint 13y ago
        From what I know applications are meant to clean up after themselves.
        mschuster91 13y ago
        But rarely, applications do this. The only notable exceptions is Winrar temp-extractions and some installers. Most other products simply let their stuff rot in TEMP hell.
- raimondious 13y ago
  I forget step 4 too, which is why I have a cronjob that moves everything in Downloads to the Trash every day.
cjoh 13y ago
Right click and save-as might be annoying but it's also a critical piece of our tinkering economy. I don't want to use a client that prohibits me from downloading the web unless it's specified as "permissible" by the author. This is a step in that direction.
- afandian 13y ago
  Quite possibly, but that's not relevant to this article.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Settle down, no one's taking your right-click away. The author is just conveying that this is a bad default to force on users for the simple act of downloading. If linking to a download, a simple click should do the job; meanwhile, power users should still able to right-click so as to pick the directory, etc.
obviouslygreen 13y ago
Take a lesson from the user backlash that happens every time a browser removes a feature: Don't do that. The best you can do is encourage developers to use an alternative. The worst you can do is to force it on people who don't share your point of view.
- Zirro 13y ago
  He isn't saying that browsers should remove the "Save as..."-feature. However, he is suggesting that browsers and websites should implement the download-attribute, which he believes will make the need for "Save as..." go away in those cases.
  - jtheory 13y ago
    Further: the article is about browsers adding a feature for HTML5 developers that formerly required tinkering with HTTP headers on the server-side. There's nothing in there about disabling Save-As.
GavinB 13y ago
For everyone complaining that they don't want to be forced to download--just have two buttons: March Invoice: View - Download This is much clearer for the average user than a single link with hidden right click functionality. Currently clicking on a link you have no idea what you're going to get.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  so would the browser be enforcing that? Or the server? Because both options are unacceptable.
  - jsingleton 13y ago
    I think the best way is for the designer to include both options. Don't leave it up to the browser.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    The page author would be forcing it?
  - gcr 13y ago
    Why are both unacceptable? Server enforcing downloading/viewing measn the user couldn't override its choice, but providing both links avoids that issue.
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      If the browser presented both choices, it wouldn't be able to distinguish by situation, so either it would hide downloading inappropriately, or it would present it inappropriately. If the server was in charge, then most websites would screw it up through incompetence or malice. Two links for every link, or have the server (an entity who doesn't necessarily have the users interest in mind) having more control over what the user can do with the content it sends. Both options suck. To be fair? I got responses in favor of both options.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
jrochkind1 13y ago
There are already ways to force browsers to download using HTTP headers. The author says this is a "server-side solutions to front-end problem", okay. But anyways, when pages use this already, it OFTEN pisses me off, when I want to look at a PDF in browser, but the web app/page is forcing me to save it to disk and then re-open it in another app. What we _really_ need, that we _don't_ have a way to do right now -- is signal the browser to _prompt_ the user as to whether it should be saved or displayed in-browser. The browser could ignore unless it was capable of displaying in-browser of course. That's something we do not have any way of doing in a reliable way now with HTTP headers, and I wish html5 would add that, instead of duplicating a lesser feature which is both possible now, and frequently annoying.
- Poyeyo 13y ago
  I think Opera already does that.
  - jrochkind1 13y ago
    Right, some browsers do, some don't. (I used to be able to _get_ Firefox to, with the right config, but stopped being abel to figure out how, then switched to chrome where i haven't figured out how either). But what we need is a standard cross-browser way to request this behavior (prompt for download vs show), that by default standards-compliant browsers will comply with (I'll allow for users over-riding this default behavior with configuration, if the browser wants to support that, sure). We don't have that. I wish html5 would add that, instead of minorly improving an annoying thing we already have (way to signal the browser to force or default to download). Sure, it should be avail in the HTML not just in HTTP headers, so the browser can let the signal effect it's UI before it does an http request for the asset, sure.
    - anonymfus 13y ago
      >But what we need is a standard cross-browser way to request this behavior (prompt for download vs show), that by default standards-compliant browsers will comply with (I'll allow for users over-riding this default behavior with configuration, if the browser wants to support that, sure). It would be annoying too. If I want to open bunch of such links as background tabs then I would need to temporally change this setting and don't forget to return it. From usability standpoint (ignoring security and performance considerations) it's better to show me content and save button simultaneously. Then why do it only when site author wants it? Saving images is common operation and it would be better to show save button for every non-dynamic content. Why modern browsers don't have save button (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Opera_3.62.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Opera_3.62.pn... ) on toolbar by default and want users to use menus for such common operation? Because designers don't have a place to put it without reducing usability for most common scenarios of browser use. Also save button was not replacement for "Save as" in context menu. Do we have solution for situation when application is complex enough that there is bunch of operations which are used rarely but must be easily accessible in one click and could be context-dependant? Yes. Microsoft's Ribbon.
smosher 13y ago
Sure fine, as long as there's a "launch handler anyway" context menu option. I don't care what people think they need to say as long as I have a way of doing the things I want to do anyway. Case in point: If I want to save a PDF I usually save it from within Okular. If Okular crashes while handling the PDF for display it's useless to me anyway.
sergiosgc 13y ago
What's with Chrome adding extensions to the filename? Is this behaviour specific to Chrome on Windows or standard across all platforms? The world does not revolve around windows. File extensions are optional, not mandatory, in unix land. If the site says the file is named foobar, its name is foobar not foobar.txt.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  The problem is that Windows desktop market share is overwhelming and as a Website author, you have to think in Windows user terms!
- nemetroid 13y ago
  File extensions are optional in Windows. I haven't had this problem with Opera, FWIW.
chrisfarms 13y ago
One small nitpick: please please don't make all your files download with a single filename. In the article it gives an example of "fixing" a hideous generated filename like "203759-fs3.pdf" to download as "invoice.pdf". Yes this is a little nicer, but please be _even_ nicer and put other relevant info in the filename, "invoice-2013-01-01.pdf" is infinitely more useful to me. Context: My bank forces statement downloads to all come out as "statement.csv" .... once you have a nice collection of "statement [43].pdf" files lying around you soon long for that hidious generated filename (or a semantically better one).
- protomyth 13y ago
  Adding the business name in front of invoice-2013-... would be nice too.
  - noja 13y ago
    Also the sha1sum of the document. Thanks.
    - ceol 13y ago
      That would probably scare most users, to see a long filename full of gibberish.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        Could, but putting it at the end of the document would seem pretty normal given what a lot of users get when downloading stuff. I think url shortners and tublr image urls probably paved the way.
- camus 13y ago
  that's definetly a very good idea. Customize your filenames with a relevant name , adding the date is a very good practice, and why not the user/customer name too ( for invoices,etc ... ).
- skore 13y ago
jtheory 13y ago
There's something of a conflict between "The download attribute is supported in Chrome 14+ and Firefox 20+" and "but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." The client-side solution sounds nice, but there's still likely a large percentage of your users for whom it won't work. So instead of just a server-side solution, to do this nicely you have to have BOTH a server-side and client-side solution, for now. How is that good? I suppose you could leave the default & old browser users to fend for themselves (in a manner of speaking), but sadly the folks who are downloading a different browser are mostly the same folks who understand how to right-click. The ones that need a simple download link are the ones still using their default browser.
mbesto 13y ago
QWERTY keyboards need to go away, but they are design patterns that people are used to. Any file the browser would normally try to display natively or through a plugin can be forced to download using this attribute. What if you want to do the opposite? Are we going to have to do "Right+click and Open in Browser"? What about mobile? Also, as far as I'm aware this issue is only really with PDF files, as virtually every other MIME extension is not supported by a browser.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  > Also, as far as I'm aware this issue is only really with PDF files, as virtually every other MIME extension is not supported by a browser. It's worse with XML files, source code and some kinds of data files (generic separated by char). Browsers try to open those, and remove important data from the display (and the copy buffer).
fulafel 13y ago
The PDF case is no problem with the builtin PDF support in Chrome and Firefox. Or if you like the Adobe stuff, just disable the plugin and you'll automatically get the download and then a prompt to launch Acrobat Reader. This is similar to forcing links to open in new windows - assuming the user is stupid in a way that doesn't even let the user to revert to the normal web behaviour (no browser function to "open in same window" vs no browser function to "open in browser")
Samuel_Michon 13y ago
Browsers that support the download attribute in HTML5 http://caniuse.com/#feat=download http://caniuse.com/#feat=download – Chrome, from version 14 – Firefox from version 20 (current) – Android Browser from version 10 (current) – Chrome for Android from version 25 (current).
- rivd 13y ago
  and again... no IE. (as the article mentions: work-around needed with conditional comments) absolutely off-topic and yes a bit unreasonable, but after years of webdevelopment, i'm getting a little cranky at every mention of this "browser" that microsoft forces developers to put up with. Yes, i know this is a "new" html5 feature and that i cant expect corporations or consumers to keep in-house browsers up-to-date, but really: its a microsoft failure. Is it really _that_ hard to keep up with the competition?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
foshur 13y ago
How would a web designer be able to choose my intention prematurely without a crystal ball? Not to mention download support in browsers got WORSE over the years. All major browsers (but especially Google Chrome with its "never ask, just do it" UI attitude) need a good download manager. I strongly prefer "save as..." over the mess that the Chrome default download behaviour is.
nextstep 13y ago
Does Mobile Safari support this download attribute?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
bpatrianakos 13y ago
I like this except for the last part where he mentions that he doesn't like server-side solutions to front-end problems. The way I see it, this is a server-side problem that only shows up on the front end. If we're talking about sending headers that tell the client to download something then that should be coming from the server. Now, it's awesomely convenient that HTML5 lets us do this but still, I see it as something that still "belongs" on the server side. Just my take on that last part.
mchanson 13y ago
Who was still using 'Right click and save as'?
- Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago
  I am, with Security Now podcasts. I don't want to open those with VLC plugin which doesn't work too well.
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  I certainly do -- I almost always want to change the file name to something that makes sense at my end. I don't often care what makes sense at the creator's end; I want to find the file quickly when I need it.
- dgesang 13y ago
  I do! Why? * I just want to save the file, not view/open it. * I can quickly determine where I want a file to be saved. * I can rename the file instantly. * Some files are huge, so I rather save than view. * Bulk-Downloading many files at once. Just because you don't need it in your daily work flow doesn't make it obsolete for everyone else.
- renanbirck 13y ago
  I do. I save files in the right place as soon as they are downloaded: that way you never have a messy Downloads folder or a crowded desktop.
cientifico 13y ago
"There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." WOW. So http have the solution for that, but as you are lazy, you want to reinvent the wheel and do it on your own, forgetting that the fronting you are talking about is running over http. The http header have a few years now (Content-Disposition). It is not related at all with apache (even if you mention a way to configure apache). You give a service to the client, not just a pile of frontend. If you don't know how to do it, hire some people that knows how the webservers and http world works!. But what you are saying is that without understanding how http works, and without any interest on learning it, you want the world to change to your needs. Isn't it?
- Cederfjard 13y ago
  I'm not entirely sure that I've grasped all of what you're saying here, but the download attribute is in the WHATWG HTML specification, and can hardly be considered OP himself trying to reinvent the wheel.
ubersync 13y ago
Should I be surprised that it doesn't work in IE?
MRSallee 13y ago
"Right click" is meaningless to Mac laptops and every mobile device. For that reason alone, I dislike using the text "Right click to save." I dunno how I feel about forcing a download without a bit more clarity to the user.
- afandian 13y ago
  I'm on a Mac laptop and an Android phone and it's very meaningful to me. I think it's fairly well understood that "right-click" means "context menu". On the Mac I access the context menu by two-finger clicking or by holding ctrl when I click. On my Android mobile device I tap and hold.
Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago
Yuck, browser specific things? What about the browsers you didn't mention? I would prefer there to be one standard way, not complicated tricks to be set up for each browser. My GF also hates to download files for viewing. Why I have to download this video, pdf, audio file, why I can't simply use it in the browser. I simply want to see the content, not to save the file permanenty on computer.
Terretta 13y ago
> There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible. I'd disagree with this being a "Front End" problem. You, serving the file, presumably have an idea what you want the user to do with the file. The .html page you propose editing is server side. The file being served is server side. The server configuration is server side. But most importantly, most browsers don't handle that attribute. So I'd say what you want is the Content Disposition header, specifically, "Content Disposition: attachment". Set a header for the file type you want handled. But that's not enough on its own to cover most browsers in the wild. Various browsers handle this header differently. Our CDN supports the following headers for files which are viewable directly in the browser. Using the appropriate header will prompt to Save As... even with a normal (left) click. We recommend number 2 or number 8: 1. Content-Disposition: attachment 2. Content-Type: application/x-download Content-Disposition: attachment 3. Content-Disposition: attachment Content-Type: application/force-download 4. Pragma: no-cache Expires: 0 Content-Type: application/force-download Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary 5. Pragma: private Cache-control: private, must-revalidate Content-type: application/x-download Content-Disposition: attachment 6. Content-Encoding: AuraganDownload Content-Disposition: attachment 7. Pragma: public Cache-Control: must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 Content-Disposition: attachment 8. Content-type: application/octet-stream Content-Disposition: attachment This list was gradually added to over the last 10 years. Besides number 2, our main recommendation, the others here are for various edge cases such as popular downloaders or varieties of corporate firewalls, proxy servers, and reverse proxy (edge) caches. I included them just in case you're battling one of those cases and want some other incantations to try.
- cfj 13y ago
  I must admit my knowledge of content headers is lacking. Thanks for sharing your list.
- teach 13y ago
  It's good to see such a comprehensive list, but these only help me if I want to configure download vs view on a per-filetype basis? There's no way to make some pdfs "display" in the browser and others force download using these headers, correct?
rocky1138 13y ago
Control-click would work much better than this attribute.
mikecane 13y ago
Let's say that gets adopted everywhere. For people like me who are used to doing RC/SA, you'll have to put a "No Need To RC/SA" prompt. You can't win.
tomphoolery 13y ago
Wow, this is so useful and I never even knew it's been around. Thanks so much!
slacka 13y ago
For people that want to test out the download attribute, instead of just reading about it, you try a demo here on your browser: http://davidwalsh.name/demo/html5-download.php http://davidwalsh.name/demo/html5-download.php Also, as GavinB suggested for big .pdf and .jpg files, I would would prefer 2 choices,"save" and "view" buttons.
Aloha 13y ago
No. Sometimes I want to open the pdf in the browser, I often to not want to save it until I have been able to look at it and see if its what I want.
nnq 13y ago
off-topic, but got to say it: > lots of people are literally afraid of the right mouse button ...c'mon, when will people grow out of this? and by people I mean GUI designers! One of the reasons I hate the guts of Unity for example is that I can't simply 'right click' -> 'customize/properties/setting' on anything I want to change in the UI. I don't want to go to a 'control/settings panel' (that may not even have the options I care about) to change settings, I just want to go around and right click on things I want to tweak. Or if I want to invoke one of the alternate actions for an UI element. I know nowadays we are designing UIs for retards (pardon, 'cognitively overloaded busy people' is the term) and not power users, but this kind of hidden 'power user' functionality doesn't hinder 'average joe' in any way. This is one of those things that old-school Microsoft UI design guys got right, but nobody gets it nowadays! (it can also be long-tap on touch screens or ctr-click on macs, but you need a universally known way of showing a menu connected to any UI element, a menu that also includes a shortcut to the particular preferences for it)
- Thrall 13y ago
  I think perhaps there is an increasing tendency to design one UI for every platform (touch screen tablets, desktops etc.) and to favour consistency across platforms rather than proper integration within each platform. So if right-click is difficult to emulate on a touch screen, then often the desktop version of a program available for touch-screen devices won't make good use of right-click either. It is perhaps part of a larger trend to try and solve UI problems for tablets and phones, then push the solutions back to the desktop, despite the fact the desktop didn't suffer from the problem they attempted to solve.
jbrooksuk 13y ago
No, no it doesn't. It's taken this long to ingrain in every single computer users brain how to do this. To change it now would be a nightmare.
kevinpet 13y ago
Designers who think their site should behave differently from web standards need to go away. This is completely inappropriate for typical sites. It's only appropriate for web apps that really do deal with files.
puddinman13 13y ago
I was hoping that at least IE 8 would support a client side fix for this, but hey who would ever assume that IE would support something.
Thrall 13y ago
This appears to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that is more problematic than the problem it attempts to solve. If my browser can handle pdfs, I probably want to view them using the browser[1]. If my browser can't handle pdfs, it will be forced to download them anyway. If my browser can handle pdfs, but I want to save it/view it with another program, I can use right-click+save as. By contrast, a pdf which I want to view in-browser, but which forces the browser to download it instead is just a nuisance. Even if there were a 'right-click+don't save it, just view it in browser', I don't know that I need to use it until I have tried clicking the link. In general terms: You publish content on the web, I decide how I view it. Try to force my hand and you'll just annoy me into going elsewhere. [1] If the browser supports pdfs by default, but I prefer to view them with somthing else, there are usually settings to tell the browser how to handle different file types.
rudiedirkx 13y ago
They're not the same... The user should have final control and without 'rightclick & save' they don't.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mitchell360 13y ago
I don't agree with the final point, "There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." If we are trying to FORCE a download, then this really is a server-side issue. If we want to give the user the choice, then it is a front-end issue. The crux of the article is all about taking away the user's choice ... and so a server-side solution seems more reasonable per @jrochkind1.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
racl101 13y ago
Well, when all browsers support the HTML 5 download features then maybe the 'Right click and save as' can go away. Until then it stays.
NewAccnt3 13y ago
After reading the article, I'm still not sure what the problem is that he's trying to solve. The client has front end issues, then there is little you can do about that besides recommending a browser. Forcing a browser or browser behavior is like telling your customers they can't drive certain cars through the drive-through or taking their steering wheel and stuffing your product in their trunk, because your mom isn't comfortable behind the wheel.
ender7 13y ago
Note that the "download" attribute is extremely useful when the href is a data or blob URI [1]. This allows you to construct the file that the user is going to get in Javascript, rather than server-side. For example, if you wanted to write an image-editing web app and didn't want to round-trip to the server to allow them to download a copy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme
- notaddicted 13y ago
  Yeah, this is useful. You can generate the URI in a click handler as well, so if you need to do some last minute assembly it still seems to work like a regular download link.
kleiba 13y ago
Firefox quirk When specifying a value for the attribute, Firefox will not automatically give the file the correct file extension like Chrome does. [...] I beg to differ. This is not a "quirk" and Chrome does not anything "correctly" that Firefox doesn't. From the HTML5 spec, regarding the "download" attribute: "There are no restrictions on allowed values, but authors are cautioned that most file systems have limitations with regard to what punctuation is supported in file names, and user agents are _likely_ to adjust file names accordingly." [1] (emphasis mine) As we can see, the spec clearly does not require a browser to do anything to the filename given as download's value. And it seems that the only reason a browser should consider doing any kind of change -- according to the spec -- is if the underlying OS cannot handle a filename's syntax. I don't know if Windows still does that but e.g. DOS used to have a restriction that filesnames must be at most 8 characters, and end in a dot followed by a three letter extension. Unix-derived operating system do not have the system, so if the OP is running on, say, on a Mac, there's no reason for Firefox to fiddle with the filename. It conforms to the standard. Now, which behavior is more reasonable is a totally different question, of course... [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/links.html#attr-hyperlink-download http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/links.html#attr...
shurcooL 13y ago
What's really annoying to me is when links start downloading instead of opening the file in the browser. Is there any way to force Chrome to open a certain link, the way you can force it to download via "save as"?
laurent123456 13y ago
> Firefox quirk - When specifying a value for the attribute, Firefox will not automatically give the file the correct file extension like Chrome does. I think the quirk is the other way around. I always dislike it when Chrome suddenly decices to add a ".txt" extension to the file I've just downloaded. It sometime even does this .js files.
- eurleif 13y ago
  If the files were being served with a text/plain MIME type, it's sensible behavior for Chrome to add .txt, and it's the site's fault for sending the wrong type info.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pow-tac 13y ago
Does it also work for the Data URI Scheme, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme#HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme#HTML Example: <img src=" AAAFCAYAAACNbyblAAAAHElEQVQI12P4//8/w38GIAXDIBKE0DHxgljNBAAO 9TXL0Y4OHwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==" alt="Red dot" />
gioele 13y ago
Doesn't this break the XHTML serialization? IIRC, the HTML 5 `<elem attr>foo</elem>` is equivalent to its XHTML representation `<elem attr="attr">foo</elem>`. The implicit value of the attribute is duplicated in the attribute value. In this case this would lead to `download="download"` as if the suggested filename is "download", not "use the filename found in the URL".
Ideka 13y ago
The "Firefox quirk" sounds more like a Chrome quirk to me.
_cipher_ 13y ago
"Right click and save as" is the last thing to go away imo. There are a LOT of things that need to go away first (to name a few: crappy development, obligatory js to view content, AWFUL prefixes (-o-, -webkit-, -whatever-) and of course browsers that suck your RAM like there's no tomorrow (yes, I'm talking about firefox and chrom{e,ium})). But again, that's just me. :)
ninakix 13y ago
I think we decided the whole "open in a new window" thing is annoying? Why not just leave the decision to the users to decide?

444 points by cfj 13y ago

I HATE sites that force downloading! I often have a 50+ MBit/sec connection and want to be able to choose between having a PDF (e.g. a invoice - all I need is the amount and the bank data) render in the browser so I can discard it after using (here: wiring the money) and not having to do: 1) download it 2) open it 3) do what I want to do 4) delete the file (which requires me to open the download folder, locate the file and delete it). If I forget step 4, I usually end up with a clusterfuck of a download directory (mine has 20 GB already in half a year, most of it is one-off downloads!).

btipling 13y ago
Browsers (or site owners) could probably do a better job of differentiating links with download attributes. Maybe on mouse over show a little download cursor or something.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  In the "old times" Firefox asked me whether I wanted to download and then open, download into temp and then open, or download into a to-be-selected folder; with an addon I could force browse render as an option, too. Yet, this required two mouse clicks in the "worst case" that the default selection didn't fit. I think the best solution is: if no download attribute set and Content-Disposition is not "attachment", then render in the browser. If either condition is met, open a popup with large buttons immediately executing the action: download to default folder, download to temp (which will be deleted upon next browser start), download to specific folder, render in browser (if there's a registered handler plugin for this mimetype). Maybe add a checkbox "Open after download has finished", and maybe also add one "Try multi-stream download" (because many sites still limit single-stream bandwidth). Even more maybe, for video files add a "Preview with VLC" and fetch the required parts (header and final part of video) first, so I can stream and keep the file for later usage.
  - Too 13y ago
    Firefox still does exactly what you ask for exactly the same way it did in the "old times". Just go to Options->General->Downloads, tick Always ask me where to download files Internet Explorer also works like this practically eliminating step 1,2 and 4 from your scenario above.
- NathanKP 13y ago
  To show an icon on hover over a link on the browser side it would require browsers to make an HTTP HEAD request for each link to see if it has the "Content-Disposition: Attachment" header. That would add a lot of overhead to the page load, so I don't think it would be added to any browser. However, it seems like a good candidate for a browser plugin for those who have fast connections and don't mind.
  - btipling 13y ago
    Note I said in case the download attribute is set on the link, in which case, no, it would not require any request, it just follows the instructions set in the HTML.
  - FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
    with the HTML5 option you could just use CSS: a[download]:after { /* add an icon or something */ }
jonahx 13y ago
1) I don't think your use case / preference is that common. I'd venture that most of the time a download is preferable; I know that's the case for me. 2) Even if I'm wrong about 1), it's hard to argue that there is never a good time to force a download, and so this is a useful feature to know about. I wasn't aware of it so appreciated the post.
sergiosgc 13y ago
From the Firefox normal behaviour, I imagine it would ask you whether you wish to open the file in the OS registered handler or save it. If you tell it to use an external program, FF downloads to temp, not to the Downloads directory. So, no clusterfuck. Anyhow you are right about the lag caused by downloading the whole file.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  The problem is that FF does not read the OS list of programs (or can call the "Use OS selection for program/Open With"), but has "its own source" - on Linux, this sucks, because if I want to specify an unknown program, it's most likely in /usr/bin, which has thousands of files and so blocks the disk for a huge time while reading the file list. On Windows, it sucks too, because I have to go to c:\, then remember if the program is x64 or x86, then remember the producer of the program, hope the program files-directory is named after the producer or the software, and then find the correct .exe to open. SUUUUCKS.
thristian 13y ago
If you're using Firefox, you might be interested in the Open In Browser extension: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-browser/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-brows...
- mschuster91 13y ago
  Yes, exactly this extension I talk about in another reply - but I don't use Firefox any more because it creates disk load and swaps heavily on a 5400rpm disk, and it locks up while waiting for disk i/o every ten seconds (every tab switch, in essence). Chrome's single-process-per-page model is better, because the OS can do proper swapping.
  - derleth 13y ago
    Interesting in that I've seen the exact opposite: Chrome hits the disk a lot harder, especially on startup, compared to Firefox.
    - mschuster91 13y ago
      This is true, the cold startup takes longer in Chrome than in FF. But if you're short on RAM (I usually hit 2-3GB usage without a browser running) and the OS starts swapping when you open tabs (I have ~30-40 open regularly), then the difference appears.
rmk2 13y ago
I don't know what OS you are using, but on linux, I save all of those files to /dev/shm. Since this parks it in shared memory, once I restart my computer at some point, they will be gone. The same can be done by using a tmpfs as your default download destination and a script that cleares any file older than x days etc. I basically use two download folders: ~/Dowloads/* and /dev/shm/; the first is being used for Downloads I'd like to keep, the latter for temporary files.
- MereInterest 13y ago
  Alternatively, use /tmp, since then you won't have the file unnecessarily using RAM until the next time you reboot.
  - rmk2 13y ago
    Unless your distribution of choice implements /tmp as tmpfs, which iirc Fedora does! ;) But yes, /tmp works as well!
cfj 13y ago
I'm almost never on a 50+ MBit/sec connection, which brings up another point. When on a slow, data-capped connection, such as the one I'm on right now, I want to know the size of the file I'm downloading. That lets me decide if it's actually worth spending my precious bandwidth on. If not, I cancel the download. When letting the browser display the file there's no (easy) way of finding out the file size.
tripzilch 13y ago
Don't other browsers have a "temporary downloads" folder? For when you select "open this file with (...)" in the download dialog? Opera does. Now I finally sort of understand why people like opening PDFs in browser plugins, I suppose ... > I usually end up with a clusterfuck of a download directory (mine has 20 GB already in half a year, most of it is one-off downloads!) yeah well but that is your own fault for saving temporary downloads in a non /tmp directory. just put them somewhere where they'll get cleaned out every so often. this is a computer, you don't even have to take the trash out yourself, but it's still up to you to differentiate between "to discard" and "to keep".`
- mschuster91 13y ago
  Windows does not have a /tmp, and Chrome doesn't offer an easy(!) way to switch download locations per download.
  - Sprint 13y ago
    Of course Windows does, $TEMP!
    - Gormo 13y ago
      You mean %TEMP%.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      That folder never gets cleared.
      - Sprint 13y ago
        From what I know applications are meant to clean up after themselves.
        mschuster91 13y ago
        But rarely, applications do this. The only notable exceptions is Winrar temp-extractions and some installers. Most other products simply let their stuff rot in TEMP hell.
raimondious 13y ago
I forget step 4 too, which is why I have a cronjob that moves everything in Downloads to the Trash every day.

cjoh 13y ago

Right click and save-as might be annoying but it's also a critical piece of our tinkering economy. I don't want to use a client that prohibits me from downloading the web unless it's specified as "permissible" by the author. This is a step in that direction.

afandian 13y ago
Quite possibly, but that's not relevant to this article.
lukifer 13y ago
Settle down, no one's taking your right-click away. The author is just conveying that this is a bad default to force on users for the simple act of downloading. If linking to a download, a simple click should do the job; meanwhile, power users should still able to right-click so as to pick the directory, etc.

obviouslygreen 13y ago

Take a lesson from the user backlash that happens every time a browser removes a feature: Don't do that. The best you can do is encourage developers to use an alternative. The worst you can do is to force it on people who don't share your point of view.

Zirro 13y ago
He isn't saying that browsers should remove the "Save as..."-feature. However, he is suggesting that browsers and websites should implement the download-attribute, which he believes will make the need for "Save as..." go away in those cases.
- jtheory 13y ago
  Further: the article is about browsers adding a feature for HTML5 developers that formerly required tinkering with HTTP headers on the server-side. There's nothing in there about disabling Save-As.

GavinB 13y ago

For everyone complaining that they don't want to be forced to download--just have two buttons: March Invoice: View - Download This is much clearer for the average user than a single link with hidden right click functionality. Currently clicking on a link you have no idea what you're going to get.

GhotiFish 13y ago
so would the browser be enforcing that? Or the server? Because both options are unacceptable.
- jsingleton 13y ago
  I think the best way is for the designer to include both options. Don't leave it up to the browser.
- DanBC 13y ago
  The page author would be forcing it?
- gcr 13y ago
  Why are both unacceptable? Server enforcing downloading/viewing measn the user couldn't override its choice, but providing both links avoids that issue.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    If the browser presented both choices, it wouldn't be able to distinguish by situation, so either it would hide downloading inappropriately, or it would present it inappropriately. If the server was in charge, then most websites would screw it up through incompetence or malice. Two links for every link, or have the server (an entity who doesn't necessarily have the users interest in mind) having more control over what the user can do with the content it sends. Both options suck. To be fair? I got responses in favor of both options.
- marcosdumay 13y ago

jrochkind1 13y ago

There are already ways to force browsers to download using HTTP headers. The author says this is a "server-side solutions to front-end problem", okay. But anyways, when pages use this already, it OFTEN pisses me off, when I want to look at a PDF in browser, but the web app/page is forcing me to save it to disk and then re-open it in another app. What we _really_ need, that we _don't_ have a way to do right now -- is signal the browser to _prompt_ the user as to whether it should be saved or displayed in-browser. The browser could ignore unless it was capable of displaying in-browser of course. That's something we do not have any way of doing in a reliable way now with HTTP headers, and I wish html5 would add that, instead of duplicating a lesser feature which is both possible now, and frequently annoying.

Poyeyo 13y ago
I think Opera already does that.
- jrochkind1 13y ago
  Right, some browsers do, some don't. (I used to be able to _get_ Firefox to, with the right config, but stopped being abel to figure out how, then switched to chrome where i haven't figured out how either). But what we need is a standard cross-browser way to request this behavior (prompt for download vs show), that by default standards-compliant browsers will comply with (I'll allow for users over-riding this default behavior with configuration, if the browser wants to support that, sure). We don't have that. I wish html5 would add that, instead of minorly improving an annoying thing we already have (way to signal the browser to force or default to download). Sure, it should be avail in the HTML not just in HTTP headers, so the browser can let the signal effect it's UI before it does an http request for the asset, sure.
  - anonymfus 13y ago
    >But what we need is a standard cross-browser way to request this behavior (prompt for download vs show), that by default standards-compliant browsers will comply with (I'll allow for users over-riding this default behavior with configuration, if the browser wants to support that, sure). It would be annoying too. If I want to open bunch of such links as background tabs then I would need to temporally change this setting and don't forget to return it. From usability standpoint (ignoring security and performance considerations) it's better to show me content and save button simultaneously. Then why do it only when site author wants it? Saving images is common operation and it would be better to show save button for every non-dynamic content. Why modern browsers don't have save button (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Opera_3.62.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Opera_3.62.pn... ) on toolbar by default and want users to use menus for such common operation? Because designers don't have a place to put it without reducing usability for most common scenarios of browser use. Also save button was not replacement for "Save as" in context menu. Do we have solution for situation when application is complex enough that there is bunch of operations which are used rarely but must be easily accessible in one click and could be context-dependant? Yes. Microsoft's Ribbon.

smosher 13y ago

Sure fine, as long as there's a "launch handler anyway" context menu option. I don't care what people think they need to say as long as I have a way of doing the things I want to do anyway. Case in point: If I want to save a PDF I usually save it from within Okular. If Okular crashes while handling the PDF for display it's useless to me anyway.

sergiosgc 13y ago

What's with Chrome adding extensions to the filename? Is this behaviour specific to Chrome on Windows or standard across all platforms? The world does not revolve around windows. File extensions are optional, not mandatory, in unix land. If the site says the file is named foobar, its name is foobar not foobar.txt.

mschuster91 13y ago
The problem is that Windows desktop market share is overwhelming and as a Website author, you have to think in Windows user terms!
nemetroid 13y ago
File extensions are optional in Windows. I haven't had this problem with Opera, FWIW.

chrisfarms 13y ago

One small nitpick: please please don't make all your files download with a single filename. In the article it gives an example of "fixing" a hideous generated filename like "203759-fs3.pdf" to download as "invoice.pdf". Yes this is a little nicer, but please be _even_ nicer and put other relevant info in the filename, "invoice-2013-01-01.pdf" is infinitely more useful to me. Context: My bank forces statement downloads to all come out as "statement.csv" .... once you have a nice collection of "statement [43].pdf" files lying around you soon long for that hidious generated filename (or a semantically better one).

protomyth 13y ago
Adding the business name in front of invoice-2013-... would be nice too.
- noja 13y ago
  Also the sha1sum of the document. Thanks.
  - ceol 13y ago
    That would probably scare most users, to see a long filename full of gibberish.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      Could, but putting it at the end of the document would seem pretty normal given what a lot of users get when downloading stuff. I think url shortners and tublr image urls probably paved the way.
camus 13y ago
that's definetly a very good idea. Customize your filenames with a relevant name , adding the date is a very good practice, and why not the user/customer name too ( for invoices,etc ... ).
skore 13y ago

jtheory 13y ago

There's something of a conflict between "The download attribute is supported in Chrome 14+ and Firefox 20+" and "but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." The client-side solution sounds nice, but there's still likely a large percentage of your users for whom it won't work. So instead of just a server-side solution, to do this nicely you have to have BOTH a server-side and client-side solution, for now. How is that good? I suppose you could leave the default & old browser users to fend for themselves (in a manner of speaking), but sadly the folks who are downloading a different browser are mostly the same folks who understand how to right-click. The ones that need a simple download link are the ones still using their default browser.

mbesto 13y ago

QWERTY keyboards need to go away, but they are design patterns that people are used to. Any file the browser would normally try to display natively or through a plugin can be forced to download using this attribute. What if you want to do the opposite? Are we going to have to do "Right+click and Open in Browser"? What about mobile? Also, as far as I'm aware this issue is only really with PDF files, as virtually every other MIME extension is not supported by a browser.

marcosdumay 13y ago
> Also, as far as I'm aware this issue is only really with PDF files, as virtually every other MIME extension is not supported by a browser. It's worse with XML files, source code and some kinds of data files (generic separated by char). Browsers try to open those, and remove important data from the display (and the copy buffer).

fulafel 13y ago

The PDF case is no problem with the builtin PDF support in Chrome and Firefox. Or if you like the Adobe stuff, just disable the plugin and you'll automatically get the download and then a prompt to launch Acrobat Reader. This is similar to forcing links to open in new windows - assuming the user is stupid in a way that doesn't even let the user to revert to the normal web behaviour (no browser function to "open in same window" vs no browser function to "open in browser")

Samuel_Michon 13y ago

Browsers that support the download attribute in HTML5 http://caniuse.com/#feat=download http://caniuse.com/#feat=download – Chrome, from version 14 – Firefox from version 20 (current) – Android Browser from version 10 (current) – Chrome for Android from version 25 (current).

rivd 13y ago
and again... no IE. (as the article mentions: work-around needed with conditional comments) absolutely off-topic and yes a bit unreasonable, but after years of webdevelopment, i'm getting a little cranky at every mention of this "browser" that microsoft forces developers to put up with. Yes, i know this is a "new" html5 feature and that i cant expect corporations or consumers to keep in-house browsers up-to-date, but really: its a microsoft failure. Is it really _that_ hard to keep up with the competition?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

foshur 13y ago

How would a web designer be able to choose my intention prematurely without a crystal ball? Not to mention download support in browsers got WORSE over the years. All major browsers (but especially Google Chrome with its "never ask, just do it" UI attitude) need a good download manager. I strongly prefer "save as..." over the mess that the Chrome default download behaviour is.

nextstep 13y ago

Does Mobile Safari support this download attribute?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

bpatrianakos 13y ago

I like this except for the last part where he mentions that he doesn't like server-side solutions to front-end problems. The way I see it, this is a server-side problem that only shows up on the front end. If we're talking about sending headers that tell the client to download something then that should be coming from the server. Now, it's awesomely convenient that HTML5 lets us do this but still, I see it as something that still "belongs" on the server side. Just my take on that last part.

mchanson 13y ago

Who was still using 'Right click and save as'?

Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago
I am, with Security Now podcasts. I don't want to open those with VLC plugin which doesn't work too well.
stan_rogers 13y ago
I certainly do -- I almost always want to change the file name to something that makes sense at my end. I don't often care what makes sense at the creator's end; I want to find the file quickly when I need it.
dgesang 13y ago
I do! Why? * I just want to save the file, not view/open it. * I can quickly determine where I want a file to be saved. * I can rename the file instantly. * Some files are huge, so I rather save than view. * Bulk-Downloading many files at once. Just because you don't need it in your daily work flow doesn't make it obsolete for everyone else.
renanbirck 13y ago
I do. I save files in the right place as soon as they are downloaded: that way you never have a messy Downloads folder or a crowded desktop.

cientifico 13y ago

"There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." WOW. So http have the solution for that, but as you are lazy, you want to reinvent the wheel and do it on your own, forgetting that the fronting you are talking about is running over http. The http header have a few years now (Content-Disposition). It is not related at all with apache (even if you mention a way to configure apache). You give a service to the client, not just a pile of frontend. If you don't know how to do it, hire some people that knows how the webservers and http world works!. But what you are saying is that without understanding how http works, and without any interest on learning it, you want the world to change to your needs. Isn't it?

Cederfjard 13y ago
I'm not entirely sure that I've grasped all of what you're saying here, but the download attribute is in the WHATWG HTML specification, and can hardly be considered OP himself trying to reinvent the wheel.

ubersync 13y ago

Should I be surprised that it doesn't work in IE?

MRSallee 13y ago

"Right click" is meaningless to Mac laptops and every mobile device. For that reason alone, I dislike using the text "Right click to save." I dunno how I feel about forcing a download without a bit more clarity to the user.

afandian 13y ago
I'm on a Mac laptop and an Android phone and it's very meaningful to me. I think it's fairly well understood that "right-click" means "context menu". On the Mac I access the context menu by two-finger clicking or by holding ctrl when I click. On my Android mobile device I tap and hold.

Sami_Lehtinen 13y ago

Yuck, browser specific things? What about the browsers you didn't mention? I would prefer there to be one standard way, not complicated tricks to be set up for each browser. My GF also hates to download files for viewing. Why I have to download this video, pdf, audio file, why I can't simply use it in the browser. I simply want to see the content, not to save the file permanenty on computer.

Terretta 13y ago

> There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible. I'd disagree with this being a "Front End" problem. You, serving the file, presumably have an idea what you want the user to do with the file. The .html page you propose editing is server side. The file being served is server side. The server configuration is server side. But most importantly, most browsers don't handle that attribute. So I'd say what you want is the Content Disposition header, specifically, "Content Disposition: attachment". Set a header for the file type you want handled. But that's not enough on its own to cover most browsers in the wild. Various browsers handle this header differently. Our CDN supports the following headers for files which are viewable directly in the browser. Using the appropriate header will prompt to Save As... even with a normal (left) click. We recommend number 2 or number 8: 1. Content-Disposition: attachment 2. Content-Type: application/x-download Content-Disposition: attachment 3. Content-Disposition: attachment Content-Type: application/force-download 4. Pragma: no-cache Expires: 0 Content-Type: application/force-download Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary 5. Pragma: private Cache-control: private, must-revalidate Content-type: application/x-download Content-Disposition: attachment 6. Content-Encoding: AuraganDownload Content-Disposition: attachment 7. Pragma: public Cache-Control: must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 Content-Disposition: attachment 8. Content-type: application/octet-stream Content-Disposition: attachment This list was gradually added to over the last 10 years. Besides number 2, our main recommendation, the others here are for various edge cases such as popular downloaders or varieties of corporate firewalls, proxy servers, and reverse proxy (edge) caches. I included them just in case you're battling one of those cases and want some other incantations to try.

cfj 13y ago
I must admit my knowledge of content headers is lacking. Thanks for sharing your list.
teach 13y ago
It's good to see such a comprehensive list, but these only help me if I want to configure download vs view on a per-filetype basis? There's no way to make some pdfs "display" in the browser and others force download using these headers, correct?

rocky1138 13y ago

Control-click would work much better than this attribute.

mikecane 13y ago

Let's say that gets adopted everywhere. For people like me who are used to doing RC/SA, you'll have to put a "No Need To RC/SA" prompt. You can't win.

tomphoolery 13y ago

Wow, this is so useful and I never even knew it's been around. Thanks so much!

slacka 13y ago

For people that want to test out the download attribute, instead of just reading about it, you try a demo here on your browser: http://davidwalsh.name/demo/html5-download.php http://davidwalsh.name/demo/html5-download.php Also, as GavinB suggested for big .pdf and .jpg files, I would would prefer 2 choices,"save" and "view" buttons.

Aloha 13y ago

No. Sometimes I want to open the pdf in the browser, I often to not want to save it until I have been able to look at it and see if its what I want.

nnq 13y ago

off-topic, but got to say it: > lots of people are literally afraid of the right mouse button ...c'mon, when will people grow out of this? and by people I mean GUI designers! One of the reasons I hate the guts of Unity for example is that I can't simply 'right click' -> 'customize/properties/setting' on anything I want to change in the UI. I don't want to go to a 'control/settings panel' (that may not even have the options I care about) to change settings, I just want to go around and right click on things I want to tweak. Or if I want to invoke one of the alternate actions for an UI element. I know nowadays we are designing UIs for retards (pardon, 'cognitively overloaded busy people' is the term) and not power users, but this kind of hidden 'power user' functionality doesn't hinder 'average joe' in any way. This is one of those things that old-school Microsoft UI design guys got right, but nobody gets it nowadays! (it can also be long-tap on touch screens or ctr-click on macs, but you need a universally known way of showing a menu connected to any UI element, a menu that also includes a shortcut to the particular preferences for it)

Thrall 13y ago
I think perhaps there is an increasing tendency to design one UI for every platform (touch screen tablets, desktops etc.) and to favour consistency across platforms rather than proper integration within each platform. So if right-click is difficult to emulate on a touch screen, then often the desktop version of a program available for touch-screen devices won't make good use of right-click either. It is perhaps part of a larger trend to try and solve UI problems for tablets and phones, then push the solutions back to the desktop, despite the fact the desktop didn't suffer from the problem they attempted to solve.

jbrooksuk 13y ago

No, no it doesn't. It's taken this long to ingrain in every single computer users brain how to do this. To change it now would be a nightmare.

kevinpet 13y ago

Designers who think their site should behave differently from web standards need to go away. This is completely inappropriate for typical sites. It's only appropriate for web apps that really do deal with files.

puddinman13 13y ago

I was hoping that at least IE 8 would support a client side fix for this, but hey who would ever assume that IE would support something.

Thrall 13y ago

This appears to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist with a solution that is more problematic than the problem it attempts to solve. If my browser can handle pdfs, I probably want to view them using the browser[1]. If my browser can't handle pdfs, it will be forced to download them anyway. If my browser can handle pdfs, but I want to save it/view it with another program, I can use right-click+save as. By contrast, a pdf which I want to view in-browser, but which forces the browser to download it instead is just a nuisance. Even if there were a 'right-click+don't save it, just view it in browser', I don't know that I need to use it until I have tried clicking the link. In general terms: You publish content on the web, I decide how I view it. Try to force my hand and you'll just annoy me into going elsewhere. [1] If the browser supports pdfs by default, but I prefer to view them with somthing else, there are usually settings to tell the browser how to handle different file types.

rudiedirkx 13y ago

They're not the same... The user should have final control and without 'rightclick & save' they don't.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mitchell360 13y ago

I don't agree with the final point, "There are or course other ways of forcing file downloads, such as adding certain configuration to your .htaccess file, but I think server-side solutions to front-end problems should be avoided whenever possible." If we are trying to FORCE a download, then this really is a server-side issue. If we want to give the user the choice, then it is a front-end issue. The crux of the article is all about taking away the user's choice ... and so a server-side solution seems more reasonable per @jrochkind1.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

racl101 13y ago

Well, when all browsers support the HTML 5 download features then maybe the 'Right click and save as' can go away. Until then it stays.

NewAccnt3 13y ago

After reading the article, I'm still not sure what the problem is that he's trying to solve. The client has front end issues, then there is little you can do about that besides recommending a browser. Forcing a browser or browser behavior is like telling your customers they can't drive certain cars through the drive-through or taking their steering wheel and stuffing your product in their trunk, because your mom isn't comfortable behind the wheel.

ender7 13y ago

Note that the "download" attribute is extremely useful when the href is a data or blob URI [1]. This allows you to construct the file that the user is going to get in Javascript, rather than server-side. For example, if you wanted to write an image-editing web app and didn't want to round-trip to the server to allow them to download a copy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme

notaddicted 13y ago
Yeah, this is useful. You can generate the URI in a click handler as well, so if you need to do some last minute assembly it still seems to work like a regular download link.

kleiba 13y ago

Firefox quirk When specifying a value for the attribute, Firefox will not automatically give the file the correct file extension like Chrome does. [...] I beg to differ. This is not a "quirk" and Chrome does not anything "correctly" that Firefox doesn't. From the HTML5 spec, regarding the "download" attribute: "There are no restrictions on allowed values, but authors are cautioned that most file systems have limitations with regard to what punctuation is supported in file names, and user agents are _likely_ to adjust file names accordingly." [1] (emphasis mine) As we can see, the spec clearly does not require a browser to do anything to the filename given as download's value. And it seems that the only reason a browser should consider doing any kind of change -- according to the spec -- is if the underlying OS cannot handle a filename's syntax. I don't know if Windows still does that but e.g. DOS used to have a restriction that filesnames must be at most 8 characters, and end in a dot followed by a three letter extension. Unix-derived operating system do not have the system, so if the OP is running on, say, on a Mac, there's no reason for Firefox to fiddle with the filename. It conforms to the standard. Now, which behavior is more reasonable is a totally different question, of course... [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/links.html#attr-hyperlink-download http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/links.html#attr...

shurcooL 13y ago

What's really annoying to me is when links start downloading instead of opening the file in the browser. Is there any way to force Chrome to open a certain link, the way you can force it to download via "save as"?

laurent123456 13y ago

> Firefox quirk - When specifying a value for the attribute, Firefox will not automatically give the file the correct file extension like Chrome does. I think the quirk is the other way around. I always dislike it when Chrome suddenly decices to add a ".txt" extension to the file I've just downloaded. It sometime even does this .js files.

eurleif 13y ago
If the files were being served with a text/plain MIME type, it's sensible behavior for Chrome to add .txt, and it's the site's fault for sending the wrong type info.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pow-tac 13y ago

Does it also work for the Data URI Scheme, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme#HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_URI_scheme#HTML Example: <img src=" AAAFCAYAAACNbyblAAAAHElEQVQI12P4//8/w38GIAXDIBKE0DHxgljNBAAO 9TXL0Y4OHwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==" alt="Red dot" />

gioele 13y ago

Doesn't this break the XHTML serialization? IIRC, the HTML 5 `<elem attr>foo</elem>` is equivalent to its XHTML representation `<elem attr="attr">foo</elem>`. The implicit value of the attribute is duplicated in the attribute value. In this case this would lead to `download="download"` as if the suggested filename is "download", not "use the filename found in the URL".

Ideka 13y ago

The "Firefox quirk" sounds more like a Chrome quirk to me.

_cipher_ 13y ago

"Right click and save as" is the last thing to go away imo. There are a LOT of things that need to go away first (to name a few: crappy development, obligatory js to view content, AWFUL prefixes (-o-, -webkit-, -whatever-) and of course browsers that suck your RAM like there's no tomorrow (yes, I'm talking about firefox and chrom{e,ium})). But again, that's just me. :)

ninakix 13y ago

I think we decided the whole "open in a new window" thing is annoying? Why not just leave the decision to the users to decide?