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]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