|
|
Jenn (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} wankaholic) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} otf_wank,@ 2007-05-19 03:50:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
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?
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?
