Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Jenn ([info]wankaholic) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2007-05-19 03:50:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Ironically, I found this one through Google.
Oh noes! Google's new homepage uses Javascript!

Cue a wank about using Javascript.

We have the oblivious, "Who wouldn't use jscript?!":

people who do not have a javascript enabled browser by now SHOULD NOT BE on the web period. I can understand if someone is using say NoScript in firefox but who would not have google trusted eh?

The, "It doesn't degrade gracefully because I can't access one feature when I don't have jscript enabled though ostensibly I could!":

It does not degrade gracefully.
I use a web browser with javascript disabled by default. There is no longer any way to click to get to googlenews. Now, I'm not saying it's a huge deal. I can just create shortcuts for news.google.com, but the fact is, it doesn't degrade gracefully.
That would be detecting if jscript is enabled, and if not, using the old method, which worked fine.

Comparisons to the Romans!:

Yes, and the Romans complained that the Visigoths didn't fight fair, whaa freaking whaa. Yeah and they now require you to have electricity to run their site too, bastards.

I hate all of you neo-Luddites; go somewhere and peel potatoes by hand and stop bothering people.

Superiority over not using a browser with jscript compability!:

All you people saying this is a non-issue or no big deal are missing one very obvious fact:

There is the correct way to create the page, which works for everyone. There is the broken way to create the page, which works for almost everyone. Why on earth would you create the broken version rather than the correct version, unless you're an idiot?

Call me a luddite, I call you a script-kiddie, unable to function without shiny buttons to click.

>people who do not have a javascript
>enabled browser by now SHOULD NOT BE
>on the web period.

What a ridiculously uninformed statement - the "web" is not the internet. I say anyone who needs a fancy web-browser to navigate the internet should not be on the internet, period. Those of us who do *not* need a fancy browser to navigate the internet are the same ones creating all the nifty shiny internet sites and features for those of you who do.

>One idea is that if you visit google
>on a phone, those links would take
>up a lot of space

Laughable to suggest - you can always do it smaller *without* javascript

I know this article is a non-issue, just like any news you might read about warrantless wiretaps, the no-fly list debacle, ridiculous TSA requirements, and anything else that doesn't make specific mention of an iPhone.

Pathetic.

Tiny, but it's Google wank. What more could you ask for?

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]semtex
2007-05-19 03:35 pm UTC (link)
DISH. I moved to Phoenix and was out of the loop for soooo looooong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]katemonkey
2007-05-19 04:25 pm UTC (link)
Oh God, it was last year, so I have to dig out some of the links...

Okay, WCAG 2 was meant to replace the existing guidelines we have, which were published nearly 10 years ago, and are kinda bollocks.

However, these new ones are pretty rubbish, 'cause they're like "OMG the web is so diverse now, and so our language has to be as generic as possible" and it's a big mess.

Joe Clark wrote To Hell With WCAG 2, which said "Dude, this sucks, I'm forming my own group", and, hence, WCAG Samurai.

And people went "OMG, you can't go against W3C like that!" and the Samurai said "Dude, we just did."

Which ought to make @media Europe 2007 interesting, as the Samurai have said they will be launching their findings around then.

Unfortunately, I don't know if I'm going to @media, so...

(That was the short and stupid version. It was mostly over a year ago.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]semtex
2007-05-19 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Oh WOW the shit I've missed out on. It's come to my attention that web developers seem to fall into four distinct categories:

  1. "OH HAI I will abuse this shiny thing called CSS but wtf web standards lol"

  2. "WEB 2.0 FAP FAP FAP"

  3. "Who fucking cares. I'm not gonna code one more iota 'till you gimme mah money BITCH." *goes on tenth smoke break*
  4. "OMG my boss has a gun to my head and we're on a tight fucking deadline and we just have to make this work LEIK YESTERDAY" *whip cracks in background*


>:(

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]alya1989262
2007-05-19 07:40 pm UTC (link)
"OH HAI I will abuse this shiny thing called CSS but wtf web standards lol"

I work as a (minor) webdev for a cultural organisation, and their site has been up for about 2-3 years, i.e. way before I started working with them. It practically DEPENDS on CSS to work! Which makes me go wtf all the time, as well as trying to explain to my supervisor that I'm sorry there're people calling in to say they can't see the website properly, but I didn't make it and I don't know enough to fix the problem (since I haven't had any formal training in coding). D:

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]semtex
2007-05-20 03:08 am UTC (link)
It sounds like the original designer(s) did CSS the *wrong* way to begin with. If the CSS is done right, it will all be controlled via an external stylesheet. And you should be able to view the HTML nekkid sans CSS with no problems, but only IF the HTML itself is well-formed, valid and structurally makes sense.
I like to live by the philosophy of Keep It SIMPLE, Stupid. Something most webdevs DON'T live by. Think about it, the more simple and lean your HTML is, the less likely it is that it will cause one's browser to vomitt AND the easier it is to find the culprit in the code when the browser does choke.

/wank

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]alya1989262
2007-05-20 02:35 pm UTC (link)
Actually, one can see the HTML "nekkid", but it looks pretty ugly (because the CSS makes the different headers and links match the background and layout of the page). And the shiny sidebar you use to navigate the site needs CSS AND js to work (that sidebar is just a pain in the arse, anyway... I spent a whole day working on it just to get it to display French characters).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]semtex
2007-05-21 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Oh, that sounds like a big giant mess. I don't envy you having to polish that there turd, no. Good times.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]scarah2
2007-05-21 04:53 am UTC (link)
WEB 2.0

Now there is a phrase I wish had never been coined. Ask 100 people what it means, and you will get 100 answers.

Is it minimalism, both in the sense of visual design for clearer navigation, and the sense of using CSS to create faster loading pages, better markup, more accessibility, more separation of content/logic/presentation?

Is it adding tons of pointless AJAX and "social networking scripts?"

Only the Nose knows.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

I hates that phrase.
[info]semtex
2007-05-21 11:36 pm UTC (link)
It's just so freaking overrated. It's closely related to other retarded corporate speak like "plan of attack" and "rightsizing" - nimrods hear a HAWT TERM and they latch onto it like flies on a steaming turd in the noonday sun.

Judging from the fapping I've read in web design mags and other such resources, I would say THE LATTER >:(

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I hates that phrase.
[info]scarah2
2007-05-21 11:41 pm UTC (link)
I guess that is my real problem with it.

Fly on turd: "I want Web 2.0 plz make it" [meaning the latter]

Me: "Lalala I can't hear yoooouuuu it means the former"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I hates that phrase.
[info]semtex
2007-05-22 12:37 am UTC (link)
Somehow I doubt they even know what it means half the time. I applaud you interrogating their request from the "wrong"* perspective! Do you get away with it, then?

*meaning, of course, OUR interpretation, not the rubes

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I hates that phrase.
[info]scarah2
2007-05-22 12:51 am UTC (link)
It all comes down to reading the room. There are three kinds of clients:

1. We're noobs, but you have a logical reply for all questions we ask, so we trust your judgement.

2. We're clued, but we just don't have time to do it.

3. We've read just enough stupid articles about "trends" to be dangerous.

It is obvious which one you have to watch out for.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: I hates that phrase.
[info]semtex
2007-05-22 01:09 am UTC (link)
OIC. My problem is, of course, that those higher up in my company fall into category 3 on… ANYTHING to do with technology. Not just web design. I can be thankful for one thing that I'm not on their web dev "team". I've got enough shit to put up with.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map