Nothing like a clever title from Time Magazine US Soccer Reboots. "Reboots" like restarts, or is that what the eurosnobs say when a player has to put their cleats on again? All in all a decent article (HT: Bigsoccer). A bit misleading in implying that MLS manages the Mexican National Team - it just profits from the teams appearances in the USA. Nothing new if your a devoted fan, but it confirms a lot that we've been hearing. We can be optimistic about the leagues stability and future profitability, which is a relief if like me you thought the league might not survive contracting a few years ago. I hope the writer will do some sort of preview and wrap up of the World Cup team.

In the past 18 months, a league that has been kept whole by dipping into the deep pockets of two soccer-nutty billionaire owners has attracted close to \$1 billion in outside investment from new franchises, new team owners, public stadium funding and sponsorship money. Adidas kicked in \$150 million to become the league's sole uniform supplier, in part to hold off Nike. MLS is close to a new television-rights deal with ABC/ESPN, one in which it will actually get money for its games, instead of having to buy the time from the networks and hope to sell it.

The article also discusses the role of SUM, and its role in promoting and managing the sport vie double headers with the US and Mexican National Teams, and by bringing teams from overseas to play in the States. Counter to the preconceived notion of many US and MLS fans, the article claims that American's fans exposure to foreign teams like Chelsea and Manchester United, whets their appetite for the game further. It's hard to prove that theory, although its a nice and optimistic one, as most folks figure that fans who see those teams play will be disappointed by the quality of play in Major League Soccer.

And finally, an intriguing quote from Gazidis about the rumoured 'Beckham' Rule which would allow each team to bring in a high-profile player whose salary wouldn't count against the team's salary cap, "Our long-term goal is to be one of the world's best leagues. We can't do that without investing in stars."\

Mossberg answers a question in his mailbox column today, including the security threat posed by viruses to Apple's computers (unless you choose to run Windows on it, then you're just as vulnerable). His assessment also applies to computers running Linux.  The common misconception is that virus writers don't target these platforms because they are not very popular. While this is true to an extent, it's a disingenous argument because it ignores the fact that Unix-like systems (Max OS X is based on BSD) it's much harder to run malicious code because the computer by default does not use the super-user or Adminstrator account. Its also harder to have a program execute without user intervention or permission, and even if a user does run a malicious program, it'll only have limited access to the system and its files.\

As of today, there have been exactly two documented, successful pieces of malicious software -- viruses, trojan horses, worms -- that affected users of the Mac OS X operating system, since it was released in 2001. And these two failed to spread much, affecting probably a few dozen people, and doing no harm. I expect there to be a small number of additional Mac viruses this year. \ \ \

Jakob Nielsen way back in 1999. and again in 2005

Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer's carpet. Don't pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since current operating systems have miserable window management). If I want a new window, I will open it myself!

With an exception for non-Web documents.

Mark Pilgrim from Dive Into Accessibility

In all dominant browsers, using the <a target="_blank"> tag to force a link to open in a new window breaks the Back button. The new window does not retain the browser history of the previous window, so the "Back" button is disabled. This is incredibly confusing, even for me, and I've been using the web for 10 years. In 2002, it's amazing that people still do this. Don't do this. Don't force links to open in new windows.

Please note that this tip is about you as a web designer, not you as a web user. If you want to open new windows while you browse, go right ahead. In Internet Explorer for Windows, hold down the [Shift]{.kbd} key while you click a link to open the link in a new window. In Netscape 6 and Mozilla, hold down [Control]{.kbd}. In Internet Explorer for Mac, hold down [Command]{.kbd}. (Some browsers such as Opera support advanced combinations like [Control]{.kbd} + [Shift]{.kbd} + click to open a link in a new window in the background.) The point is that the choice of whether a link will open in a new window should be the end user's choice, not the web designer's choice.

More practical advice from Brainstorm & Raves

Consider the target audience, allowing for the less computer- or browser-savvy. More savvy users already know they can press the [SHIFT]{.kbd} key when clicking on a link or right-click on a link to open it in a new window. For less savvy users, you could provide separate links for opening in a new window or the existing window, along with letting them know they can download it for offline viewing.

And finally, a good list of 5 reasons why you should avoid this and why this practice won't really keep users around.

Here are my top five usability reasons why you should beware of opening links in a new window:

1. Unless you warn them, web users are likely to expect the new page to load in the current window. Unexpected surprises can be fun, but not when you're browsing the web.

why this practice won't really keep users around.

Not on its own it won't. Web users will stay on a website because it has the information they're looking for, or because it helps them achieve their goals, not because the browser window is still open.