So what do you do, target a browser and tell everyone that your site only works on Firefox 2 but not 3. Or you could use IE7 but not 6.
Or if you use chrome you have to turn off a certain feature.

It is bad enough with the referrer issue with Norton,Etc.
And dealing with different settings for each internet security settings.

I know it is a big issue, but where do you draw the line?

Well, if the issue effects more than one product, that's where i'd draw the line... i mean, making every field name obscure as to not "trip" would make dev even more difficult as you'd have to go in and have to actually look at what has to be updated instead of using logical names like "name" and "email" and "address", etc...

A valid "fix" would be if these browsers would create an html code to disable their autofill on any page it's specified; so they could make support for a prepriatary tag like:


Then we could just embed that anywhere we'd want it disabled, like every page of the CP... But that's up to them what prepriatry crap they want to shove in their product...

There is actually a thread on Google's Support Pages regarding the autofill in the Google Toolbar (give or take it's the same real behaviour as with the autofill in Crome); a lot of developers don't like the behaviour and are also seeking a tag to disable the autofill via a tag on a page as well.

I'd just rename all the special field names to ubb_name, ubb_email, and ubb_password and be done with it.

Sadly that wouldn't fix it in all cases; if you read the post I linked to above you'll see that anything containing "pass" can trigger the password, anything with "name" can trigger name...

Unless you went out of the way to name everything something totally out there (name: 8237980327441; pass: u2309ur023joijhoi, etc) you'll still get tagged by the autofill; and would make dev time a pain (both for rick, modders, etc)...

Again, this is really the browser/plugin creators problem, they need to make and follow a method of allowing site owners to disable their tool.

I understand the "it's not our problem" mentality, but an unhappy UBB customer is an unhappy UBB customer.

If other message board software solves the problem, then UBB could lose market share, because in the end; a customer doesn't really care who's problem it is, they just want to to all work.

I too am a software developer. My software works on all versions of Windows, but I had to either (1) say 'too bad' to people running Windows NT, or (2) work around the shortcomings of NT.
I chose to do the extra work needed so that my customers had a good experience.

My customers--like your customers--HATE to hear "it's not my problem"; especially when we know that you CAN work around the problem, but CHOOSE not to on principal.

Even though you're not asking; I recommend you work around the problem and never utter the words "It's not our problem" again

PS. Don't you guys have a #define mechanism?
Can you say something like:
#define EMAIL flabber_123
#define PASSWORD snarf_6969

such that the developer sees human readable names and the runtime environment sees some uninteresting field names?

I'm by no way a staff at infopop/groupee/whatever... I'm a user of the software just like you; i just understand how things work and all that fun jazz (hence why i'm a beta tester and a gold license holder).

My opinions are that of myself, not groupee/infopop.

By saying it's not the UBBs problem, i'm saying that the browser companies need to make it so that it's EASIER to work with their functionality; by specifying that post above i show that others are requesting the same thing FROM the company, which I'm assuming will be eventually worked on BY the manufacturer of the browser/plugin since they tend to have a decent track record with such things.

I'm not saying "it's not our problem" i'm saying it'll make maintenance more difficult, both for the product maintainer and 3rd party modders (and even board owners who just want to play with code every once and again).

not to mention taking a step backwards from XHTML compliancy

Additionally, bending over backwards to support a Web browser's shortcomings only encourages the behavior to continue.

My point exactly