SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 119 of 119
  1. #101
    SitePoint Addict NetNerd85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    298
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveMaxwell View Post
    To ask a question that is worded in a leading manner implies that the manner it is worded is the position the person asking the question already has.

    Or in other words: "I believe the sky is red. You agree, don't you?"
    I know that, I was a sales person at one stage which is all about leading them to say YES! But I asked...

    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    Who thinks it is unacceptable for ANY website to not be accessible by ANY device and ANY one person?
    It's just a question, no leading what so ever, where's the leading? I don't mention myself or state my beliefs. It seems like you made a false presumption to me.
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  2. #102
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,267
    Mentioned
    116 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    I know that, I was a sales person at one stage which is all about leading them to say YES! But I asked...

    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    Who thinks it is unacceptable for ANY website to not be accessible by ANY device and ANY one person?


    It's just a question, no leading what so ever, where's the leading? I don't mention myself or state my beliefs. It seems like you made a false presumption to me.

    Perhaps, though the choice of wording is easily misconstrued...which is more leading, this

    Who thinks it is unacceptable for ANY website to not be accessible by ANY device and ANY one person?

    or something like this
    Is there anytime where it would be acceptable for a website to be inaccessible by a device or person?

    Choosing the wording to be a negative connotation, the specific choice of the word unacceptable, and all the emphasis on the ANY, led me to believe you had already formed your opinion....if I was wrong, I apologize, but how it was worded led my answer...
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style
    Learn how to be ready for The Forums' Move to Discourse

  3. #103
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Here's an example of what deathshadow's talking about as far as developers:
    http://www.ecommercedeveloper.com/ar...roduct-Images-
    read that article, and then read it again.
    Excellent example of scripting for nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    The recommendation: use inline CSS to hide the products. Then use Javascript to make it appear. Brilliant.
    For those of you who are not from New England and do not recognize it, SP's post is called sarcasm. I figured I'd point that out since it tends to go over most people's heads.

    Not only could this entire thing be done in most modern browsers WITHOUT javascript (and using a 2k behavior file or small IE6 specific script to make legacy IE work) even if you were using javascript to do it, scripting off should show the content or at least have a fallback anchor to show it. The show/hide either being handled by the CSS, or by a simple class swap in the script. (I laugh when I see people screwing around with element.Style in the scripting for on/off states)

    The proper approach being to parse the document for the tag type of the outermost wrapper, check for the presence of a trigger class, and then attach all the targeted scripting from the parent script.

    Magento from what I've seen seems to use hundreds of K of javascript while 90% of it is either doing CSS' job, or the job of 2-10k of assistance for IE6.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    These people are getting paid mega-bucks, are well-known in the developer world, are making very popular eCommerce templates/frameworks such as Magento, and this is why they are no different than those guys who get their kicks out of pushing wheelchair users into traffic or grabbing the cane out from a blind guy.
    Pretty much, sleaze out the code any old way, who cares who you shtup along the way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    The page to view your shopping cart with the products in it is at least 10 separate inline scripts, not counting the Magento script (varien.js), the two libraries they load (prototype and scriptaculous)
    300+k of scripts just to support their one proprietary script, again most of it doing CSS' job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    the bookmarking (I thought browsers already did that)
    That dreck always pisses me off. Complete waste of code - never waste code on doing something the browser can already do all by itself!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    A lot of it is "nice to have"
    In other words, it's "cute"

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    if you don't mind waiting for all that to load (it never finishes loading in my IE6 and sometimes does not finish loading in my IE7 or my Safari 3).
    Or not so cute. IE6 probably chokes on the dom manipulation, later browsers possibly getting 'stuck' in a recursion loop thanks to scriptalicious. Seen that more than once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    But you cannot order a product without the fancy pretty stuff.
    Which makes the entire thing useless to do it's job, and is when you need to tell those mamzers where to shove their narrischkeit.

    The ineptitude of the coders of some of these major software packages never fails to astound me. The ONLY reason ANY of these schlemiels are able to get anyone to use their crap is the ignorance of most of the schnooks out there. It basically all boils down to little more than nube predation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    However a shopping site is one of those sites that only benefit from being accessible to all. It's not a game site. It's not a video site. It's a buy-our-stuff site. if Amazon can do it then I see no excuse for something like Magento
    Especially since to do so you are making the site SIMPLER. In many cases these 'problems' all stem from some eager beaver going "this is so cool" not realizing that for more than half the people out there it ends up being SO LAME - If it works at all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    which is VERY popular with merchants.
    If by merchants you mean one-off fly-by-night sleaze that I personally would never order anything from... Seriously, name for me a REAL website that uses that junk and isn't just some guy in his basement doing little more than advertising for a drop-shipper? Welcome to the world of get rich quick scams.

    But see my opinion of reseller programs and affiliate marketing - did we learn NOTHING from the first DotCom crash?

    Sleazy software for sleazy business practices I guess...

    Off Topic:

    Look ma, no asterisks. Praise be for yiddish

  4. #104
    dooby dooby doo silver trophybronze trophy
    spikeZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    13,806
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    yiddish ******* rocks
    Mike Swiffin - Community Team Advisor
    Only a woman can read between the lines of a one word answer.....

  5. #105
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Ds, awsome Yiddish, I thought someone had implemented a DS_FILTER around here : )

    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd
    What about people that don't have the time or budget? Do all of your clients like paying for that extra time they may or may not care about?
    A good developer does know when it benefits his/her client to go all-out or not wrt accessibility. However, for MOST sites doing what MOST sites do (not specialty sites), making it accessible is NOT hard and should not cost more time or money (possibly a bit of time for testing, at most). If it were some unbelievable burden, sure, but this is why laws like the US's Americans with Disabilities Act say "reasonable" as far as what a public business should or must do to comply. It doesn't make sense if it costs them an arm and a leg and nobody who's disabled goes there anyway.

    But I don't believe basic, plain old regular accessibility should cost more. Having valid code shouldn't cost more either and yeah, I've heard of that too.

    What if your shop sells computer keyboards and mice, nothing else? Custom keyboards and mice. With maybe mice pads as extras. Occasionally getting in speakers. What level of accessibility does that site need? Mobile device? Screen reader? Doesn't sound like it to me at all. Not every, in fact hardly any websites are as big as amazon.
    A site needs a basic level of accessibility if it has plain text. Make the plain text available in a logical fashion without someone having to do unreasonable things. Disabled people buy speakers and they buy keyboards.
    When I insisted on making our vehicle insurance web sites accessible, I got a lot of this joke: "great, now the blind can insure their scooters/cars/motorcycles". Ha ha, yes. Because you'd never have a situation like, oh, a blind parent setting up insurance for their teenage son and his scooter, right? I wouldn't let my 15-year-old do his own insurance, esp not if he wanted to use my name for the discount. Just an example.

    Making something work with a screen reader mostly just means, logical source order and the plain text is available, period. Not hard, and should be default when building a site just like valid HTML should be default. But, you seem to have missed the multiple times I've said that very specific things that demand specific software have different target audiences, as the many many times I mentioned game or video sites— those are just the easiest to use as examples of having a different go at building sites. That still doesn't excuse YouTube from making the login button work perfectly fine without scripting but the logout button a <a href="#">Log Out</a> with some Java-da-junk attached. Servers log you in and they log you out. Someone was taking a shortcut for no good reason (see below).

    Not sure what sort of CSS coder would use inline code these days but on the occasion decide creating a new class declaration just is not worth it.
    I understand those situations, though still I haven't made a site for my company or any of my clients with inline styles, for any reason. I have used them for quick-n-dirty testing of someone else's code though.
    The problem really is, a tutorial is encouraging it.

    Very good point but that's a choice to be made for the business owner, not the web developer. Not every website, very few websites should feel they have to cater for everyone, everywhere. That's just too demanding for small businesses.
    It shouldn't be, and they're getting ripped off if front-end developers are charging them more for accessible sites. It's not rocket surgery, it's 90+% common sense (after articles at places like A List Apart and Web AIM and Jim Thatcher and Juicy Studios yadda yadda show you what you're up against). And, at some point, no, it isn't the business's choice. Someone finally made rules in many countries and municipalities regarding whether restaurants can keep out people in wheelchairs or with guide dogs. It's a little sad that someone had to file a lawsuit (I want to live in a world where people don't need to use lawsuits to get laws changed, that's such a retarded way to do it) just to have the right to visit his own courthouse (I should find that case, but it's so sad I don't consider it average example but a special freaky one). Online businesses are considered public in the way private brick-n-mortar businesses are (owned privately, open to the public) in many countries, and the accessibility laws are expanding. Your clients may not have any special requirements to be accessible now. They may have to in the future, depending on who their audience is.

    Sorry? what? since when has being a lazy, poorly informed web developer been a comparison for the torture and abuse of disabled people? Seriously
    Somewhat seriously, yes. Mostly because, really, when the more-obviously-disabled get treated badly, it usually isn't someone trying to be an a-so (a-social, I dunno if this is only a Dutch term or not), but someone unaware. Poorly informed is fine, you get told what's what and then you're not poorly informed any more. However, if you are offering web services, you should be expected to know, just as you're expected to know what the W3C validator is, what cross-browser is, what WCAG is, which is why I can't tell if it's ignorance (which is curable but doesn't have an excuse in this day of Jeffery Zeldman etc running around everywhere) or laziness (they know it doesn't work, but just don't care). The latter, I see very little difference between that and actively making some people's lives harder.

    I don't develop big sites. They're not great, and most of them are pretty ugly too (though in my defence, I didn't design most of them). But I do take my profession seriously nonetheless. Part of the whole point of web standards was to keep in line with the original idea of HTML, and it being available to all regardless of user agent, software, hardware, or physical or mental handicaps. How can this mean ALL sites ALL the time for ALL people? It can't. Not everyone speaka-de-engrish, so sites in English are automatically not accessible. Not all sites are made of text, so they are simply not usable in a text browser. The whole POINT of a photographer's site is to show their work, so no, people who don't load images aren't going to get any real benefit from it (however, a professional photographer wants a web developer who keeps their opening times, prices, address, etc in very readable and easy-to-find format!). I am generally happy with most of my code so long as it Just Works with HTML and a well-written back-end doing server stuff. Again, for the bazillionth time, a site whose purpose is to use special software isn't going to work with Just HTML, because it's not a web document— it's become an application, and the arguments over those have just been getting more steam recently.

    The point isn't to make the blind see, the paraplegics walk, the dyslexics read, the Linux users get Windows. The point is writing Good Code that follows web guidelines (w3c and WCAG), takes the website's audience into account, degrades gracefully, and making sure you're not stealing the cane. You are slower on a site with a screen reader, oh well, and you won't see all the cool graphics the web dev spent a lot of time on. But while it takes you longer to find stuff or fill in a form, the site is doing its job so long as they CAN find stuff and fill in that form.

    Someone using a laptop where the trackpad sucks balls would be an excellent example of someone who needs keyboard accessibility. Oh noes, they're not blind or paralysed! But they count too. Lots and lots of people using keyboards to get around for practical reasons. As Dave Maxwell said, people have plenty of good reasons to surf with images and scripts off. Scripts will drain the battery of your iWhatever or PDA so much faster, and for what? So someone can click on a broken anchor and have it DoStuff()? Sitting in a busy wi-fi cafe, waiting for ever for all the goofy graphics to load. A well-built site won't care. The alt text wasn't just added, but it's also set in a colour that contrasts with the background-colour of the element it's sitting against (again, something I think a Good Developer is careful of).

    Quote Originally Posted by drHouse
    If by merchants you mean one-off fly-by-night sleaze that I personally would never order anything from... Seriously, name for me a REAL website that uses that junk and isn't just some guy in his basement doing little more than advertising for a drop-shipper? Welcome to the world of get rich quick scams.
    My client's competition use Magento, except for the very large ones (Hayseed is one), who seem to always have their own custom setup (and who wouldn't want that?).

  6. #106
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    A good developer does know when it benefits his/her client to go all-out or not wrt accessibility. However, for MOST sites doing what MOST sites do (not specialty sites), making it accessible is NOT hard and should not cost more time or money (possibly a bit of time for testing, at most).
    If anything if you start out with semantic markup and progressively enhance - it should be LESS work and LESS code! That's the part that really rips me about it - these shmucks vomiting up hundreds of K of borked doing the job of 10's of K of proper code because it's allegedly... EASIER? Right....


    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    But I don't believe basic, plain old regular accessibility should cost more. Having valid code shouldn't cost more either and yeah, I've heard of that too.
    ... and it's annoying as hell when some ignorant putz makes claims to the contrary just because they are too lazy to bother learning how to do things PROPERLY... or to realize that their fat bloated "ain't it neat" trash alienates potential clients, is a billion times harder to update, is more likely to BREAK when updated, and will usually cost more to host.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    When I insisted on making our vehicle insurance web sites accessible, I got a lot of this joke: "great, now the blind can insure their scooters/cars/motorcycles". Ha ha, yes. Because you'd never have a situation like, oh, a blind parent setting up insurance for their teenage son and his scooter, right?
    Or buy a car and register it in their name even though they have a DRIVER/caregiver. I know a guy who's quadriplegic - the vehicle is in his name even though his caregiver is the one who drives it.

    Oh, and he surfs the web too using the same puffer type mechanism he uses to push is chair around with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Making something work with a screen reader mostly just means, logical source order and the plain text is available, period.
    Which is what you should have before you even think about layout - though certainly some semantic markup and proper heading orders won't kill you either.

    But instead you have these pisher out there who seem to think that drawing a pretty picture in photoshop has anything to do with web design so they end up shoe-horning content into their goofy graphics and to hell with the WCAG or even common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    That still doesn't excuse YouTube from making the login button work perfectly fine without scripting but the logout button a <a href="#">Log Out</a> with some Java-da-junk attached. Servers log you in and they log you out. Someone was taking a shortcut for no good reason (see below).
    When they don't have a damned thing on the site which warrants javsascript in the first place - and certainly no excuse to not have graceful fallbacks in place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I understand those situations, though still I haven't made a site for my company or any of my clients with inline styles, for any reason. I have used them for quick-n-dirty testing of someone else's code though. The problem really is, a tutorial is encouraging it.
    Yeah, but remember over 90&#37; of web tutorials and books on shelves are decade out of date web rot or just plain "Gee ain't it neat" malarkey that has no business on a production website. All you need is a stroll over to dynamic drive for classic examples of how NOT to use javascript.

    It reminds me of the Video for the 2nd edition of Ian Lloyd's "Build Your Own Web Site The Right Way Using HTML & CSS

    Gah, where was the link to that...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wZAE_3L3HM

    The part where he talks about going into a bookstore and seeing every book a decade behind the times with each one being worse and worse than the one preceeding it - that's how I feel when I look at almost all of the garbage online telling people how to make websites. It's a train wreck of outdated, half-assed, sleaze it out any old way GARBAGE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    However, if you are offering web services, you should be expected to know, just as you're expected to know what the W3C validator is, what cross-browser is, what WCAG is, which is why I can't tell if it's ignorance (which is curable but doesn't have an excuse in this day of Jeffery Zeldman etc running around everywhere) or laziness (they know it doesn't work, but just don't care).
    I'm really starting to think it's mostly the latter with people not wanting to learn or even think about it... and my experience trying to work with other people (just another contributing factor to my premature retirement).

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    The point isn't to make the blind see, the paraplegics walk, the dyslexics read, the Linux users get Windows. The point is writing Good Code that follows web guidelines (w3c and WCAG), takes the website's audience into account, degrades gracefully, and making sure you're not stealing the cane.
    After all, ALL OF THOSE THINGS EXIST FOR A REASON. But you'll always get the same crowd of shmoes saying "It works just fine by my not obeying the rules" over things like their invalid markup, scripting for nothing, and outdated methodologies... Sure thing Mr. High School dropout. Can you say "Ding, fries ready" for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    You are slower on a site with a screen reader, oh well, and you won't see all the cool graphics the web dev spent a lot of time on. But while it takes you longer to find stuff or fill in a form, the site is doing its job so long as they CAN find stuff and fill in that form.
    Which is why if you write working HTML that is completely functional ignoring appearance and layout FIRST, and then bend the markup to your will with CSS and THEN hang your goofy crap like images on it, you will most ALWAYS have that for little if any extra effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    As Dave Maxwell said, people have plenty of good reasons to surf with images and scripts off. Scripts will drain the battery of your iWhatever or PDA so much faster, and for what? So someone can click on a broken anchor and have it DoStuff()? Sitting in a busy wi-fi cafe, waiting for ever for all the goofy graphics to load. A well-built site won't care.
    Or places like 50 miles north of me where 33.6 dialup as a long distance phone call is a good day (because the population density is so low not one broadband provider will touch it). I might have 22mbps downstream, but that doesn't mean the majority of people in places like the American plain states or even the backwoods of the Appalachia do.

    Or if broadband is available, it's highway robbery through asshattery like Hughesnet.

  7. #107
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    When they don't have a damned thing on the site which warrants javsascript in the first place - and certainly no excuse to not have graceful fallbacks in place.
    They use it for one thing: they seem to have something like SWFObject or some such which uses JS to load the Flash. On my browsers on the Windows machine, which have Flash, I don't get flash when JS is turned off. I'm not exactly sure what all they do with it, but I do know they're using it for the videos as well. Which is fine.

    I know if I want to show someone a video, I can just go to YouTube and look for it and link it to them, without my needing to boot up the Windows. Which is how it should work. If I want to actually watch a video, I should need to download Flash (or whatever else can do the same job).

  8. #108
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    They use it for one thing: they seem to have something like SWFObject or some such which uses JS to load the Flash.
    In other words they are too inept to figure out how the OBJECT tag works - gotcha.

    SWFObject - another stellar example of javascript for NOTHING.

  9. #109
    Utopia, Inc. silver trophy
    ScallioXTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,083
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    SWFObject - another stellar example of javascript for NOTHING.
    I don't agree.

    - SWFObject replaces the content of an element (a div for example), so you can use that div to put in content for users who don't have flash and/or javascript (accessibility!)
    - It has flash player version detection, so you can alert users who already have flash, but their version is too old, to get a new version
    - Inserting the OBJECT or EMBED through JavaScript doesn't trigger the utterly annoying "click here to activate this element" in IE6/7

  10. #110
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Scallio
    - SWFObject replaces the content of an element (a div for example), so you can use that div to put in content for users who don't have flash and/or javascript (accessibility!)
    <object> was supposed to do that, but IE support sucked balls. Like alt text for img, <object> has alternative children... who themselves can have alternative children.

  11. #111
    SitePoint Enthusiast MJ Pieterse's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fourways, Gauteng, South Africa
    Posts
    39
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just think that browsers need to standardize. They should support all functions (language and styling) in the same way. That would definitely make a designer’s job easier, than having to tweak everything just to get it to work perfectly cross browser. If all the browsers supports the same styling and functions it would really be another way to be innovative with your design without any limitations…

    Just my thoughts…

  12. #112
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ScallioXTX View Post
    - SWFObject replaces the content of an element (a div for example), so you can use that div to put in content for users who don't have flash and/or javascript (accessibility!)
    You mean what should be the content of the OBJECT tag in the first place? (Oh and Stomme - I've never seen the contents of OBJECT not work right in IE, do you have an example?)

    Quote Originally Posted by ScallioXTX View Post
    It has flash player version detection, so you can alert users who already have flash, but their version is too old, to get a new version
    You mean something the plugin has provided all by itself since 2003? You mean the part that from Opera 9.5 through 9.63 was faulty and always reported the wrong version? Gee, broken browser sniffing - who'd have thunk it! Next thing you'll be telling me there are faulty browser sniffers for major websites like "Bank of America" that detected Opera 10 beta as Opera 1.0 forcing them to make the user agent string for 10.53 be "Opera/9.80 (Windows NT 6.1; U; en) Presto/2.5.24 Version/10.53" -- Oh wait, that did happen. Way to go sleazeballs lazy assed coders using javascript for nothing. (and making MORE work for yourselves in the name of being lazy? That makes sense.)

    Quote Originally Posted by ScallioXTX View Post
    Inserting the OBJECT or EMBED through JavaScript doesn't trigger the utterly annoying "click here to activate this element" in IE6/7
    ... and what you call annoying I go out of my way with plugins or user javascript to force other browsers to do, since I don't want auto-playing bull bloating out a page or interrupting the nice music I happen to have playing in WinAMP or sucking down bandwidth for some cutesy animated trash.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433/

    http://my.opera.com/Lex1/blog/flashblock-for-opera-9

    https://chrome.google.com/extensions...jplobcaignabnl

    Well, the Opera one I don't really use - since I can just disable plugins globally then use "site preferences" to enable it on a site-by-site basis.

  13. #113
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    (Oh and Stomme - I've never seen the contents of OBJECT not work right in IE, do you have an example?)
    Remember I must support K-Meleon, IE6 and IE7.
    Not that I really care that K-Meleon will put a border around an img in an object with an image map, as I don't use image maps, but whatever, it's broken.

    1.That IE6 renders all your alternative children at once, instead of the first one supported, is bagger.

    2.That both IE6 and IE7 use padding as an excuse to throw ugly scrollbars around rendered object children is crapola.

    3.That you cannot use object as iframe replacement (embedding another document) in IE is retardo.

    4. I'll let the broken image map thing fly because seriously, image maps suck balls. But, they indeed don't work in IE.

    5. I've similarly never used codebase, either because it doesn't work so why bother, or because I didn't think it was cooler than just doing it in plain HTML. That, and I can't pick on IE getting it wrong when no other browser bothered implementing it correctly either. So, not counting it, just mentioning it.

    So, three big things that bother me. I remember once making a nasty Flash at the behest of my manager and I thought, I'll be clever and give those without Flash an image (all it was was stupid Flash going through some photos anyway). At the time (2 years ago? 3?) I only got 2 browsers to work with it at all: Opera and Konqueror. Often, images presented as alternate children did NOT show the alt text if the image could not be shown. I'm still seeing this in Epiphany, which has no excuse since it's moved over to webkit from Gecko.

    Frankly, I'll only ever feel safe using <object> for the bare minimum: show a file who is not another document, and put a single alternate child. If the alternate child is an image, then I have to realise the alt text will not be found/seen/read by everyone, so it had better not be important.

    SwfObject simply uses brute force and javajunk to determine the content you get.

  14. #114
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Ok SP, I should have been more specific as yes, I've seen it misbehave with other content - when used for FLASH or other VIDEO do you have any examples? You know, kind-of the the topic of this thread?

    Though your first one, I have no clue what that even MEANS. When the object fails of COURSE everything nested inside it is displayed, that's what it's for... Why would you expect it not to? How would it even TELL?!? IN ANY BROWSER? (Am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying?)

    But the rest of those have nothing to do with using it for flash or other video content, and instead have everything to do with what the tag was originally supposed to be for. That's my problem with HTML 5, instead of riding microsoft's case about not supporting the existing tag properly, they introduce two new tags to be poorly if ever supported. GREAT. Just what we don't need.

    Fun fact is the problem with the extra border and padding is entirely reliant upon what plugin is being used to render the content in IE - the one built into the browser is at fault; Install quicktime and try out OBJECT in IE, and laugh at the complete change in behavior of images inside OBJECT. (and that magically you gain jpeg2000 support)

    Which is just another reason NOT to have the browser makers OR the W3C decide on a default or built-in codec - they'll probably screw it up, while if we can agree to all use the same plugin to handle it (like flash) it might actually have consistent behavior. (though don't bet on it) - HELL, isn't that why we started using flash for video in the first place?

    Sad part is, as anti-adobe as I am when it comes to web technologies, I'd trust them a hell of a lot more than I'd EVER trust the browser makers - ANY OF THEM - when it comes to this subject.

  15. #115
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    When the object fails of COURSE everything nested inside it is displayed, that's what it's for... Why would you expect it not to? How would it even TELL?!? IN ANY BROWSER? (Am I completely misunderstanding what you are saying?)
    Yeah: you can make a list of children possibilities in an object. IE7 does get this correct, so it's becoming moot, but suppose you had four possibilities you wanted to show, instead of, say, Flash (contrived example coming, although my personal experience was trying to substitute an animated gif for Flash):

    <object calls flickittyflash.swf> <-- user doesn't have Flash player, move on-->
    <some flickittyflash.apng><--user's browser doesn't know apng-->
    <some svg image> <--user's got IE, no svg love here-->
    <img type=jpg alt="you have no images"> <--this might be the first child the browser can actually render, and if it can't, it should render the alt text-->
    <p>I pity the foo who uses IE</p>
    </object>
    IE7 and the other browsers will show just one child, whomever is the first renderable. IE6 will try to show all 4:

    [blank apng][blank svg][image.jpg or alt text][p]
    all next to each other.

    It's an ugly bug, and as far as I know you can't get around it. But, if you are only supplying a single child, then (except for the scrollbars) it's ignorable. But, you did ask what was wrong with IE and object.

    The only time I've used <object> is indeed to deliver Flash.

  16. #116
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @SP - Uhm, object's fallback content does NOT pick and choose that way. I'm not even sure where you got the idea it should or that IE7/newer behaves differently in that regard....

    Unless you are talking (to borrow from the WDG's HTML 4 reference)
    Code:
    <OBJECT CLASSID="yahtzee.py" CODETYPE="application/x-python" STANDBY="Ready to play Yahtzee?" TITLE="My Yahtzee Game">
    	<OBJECT CLASSID="java:Yahtzee.class" CODETYPE="application/java" WIDTH=400 HEIGHT=250 STANDBY="Ready to play Yahtzee?" TITLE="My Yahtzee Game">
    		<OBJECT DATA="yahtzee.gif" TYPE="image/gif" TITLE="A Yahtzee animation" WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=100>
    			Yahtzee is my <EM>favorite</EM> game!
    		</OBJECT>
    	</OBJECT>
    </OBJECT>
    Which works just fine in 6 here...

    I don't know what you mean by "some" as a tag, but there is NOTHING in object that would make it show just one child if they are all siblings, all child elements of an OBJECT tag should be shown simultaneously if they are all siblings - IN ALL BROWSERS. I put in a H2 followed by a P, it should render BOTH. I put in a IMG followed by a P, it should render BOTH. I put in 20 image tags in a row as children of OBJECT, they should ALL render. You want drop-through they all have to be OBJECT's.

    Otherwise, how would PARAM even work in the first place? The only reason I can think that your example MIGHT work in other browsers is that all the elements ARE in fact being rendered, it's just you aren't seeing them as they are sitting one-atop the other or get pushed off the bottom of the parent OBJECT's container.

  17. #117
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/h...ects.html#nest

    See what IE6 does, then see what IE7 does.

  18. #118
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/h...ects.html#nest

    See what IE6 does, then see what IE7 does.
    1) Ok, see, that's what I said, nest them. (your example made no sense)

    2) It works as it should here:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_other...operObject.jpg

    Though admittedly I have quicktime (ok, QT Alternative) installed which changes the rules of how IE6 OBJECTS work just a bit...

    It does bomb how you describe in IE 5 though.

  19. #119
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by iMeow View Post
    Recently Joe Hewitt, a well-known Facebook developer, sent out a series of tweets relating to the current state of the web and why it is evolving so slowly. He makes quite controversial statements such as that web standards actually cripple the web. He envisions the capabilities of open online technologies being just as powerful as native applications and says this won't be possible unless the way in which browsers innovate changes drastically. He essentially says that browsers should be adding their own browser-specific features (which is generally frowned upon by the web development community) and coming up with new ideas that do not fall within the W3C's and ECMA's specifications. The standards bodies should then come afterwords and clean up and structure these ideas and encourage all browsers to support them. Some other controversial statements he makes:
    • Microsoft was doing innovative things with Internet Explorer until developers asked them to stick to the standards.
    • IE 6 was a very innovative browser back in the day.
    • Flash isn't evil. It simply saw a gap that web standards weren't filling and tried to make up for it.
    • Forcing users to use a specific browser to use certain features on site may be better than the "since all browsers don't support it, I am not going to implement support for it" stance.

    Again, the statements he makes are very controversial. But they are well substantiated and his arguments are backed up. Although I have never thought of things in this way, to me, what he says makes a lot of sense. Techcrunch did a great job of compiling these tweets here. It's a great read.
    Netscape used to exceed standards, too, but of course pretending to cater to them became the fallback position when they blundered so badly with Netscape 4.

    The stagnation argument is correct, and this is why:

    "Standards" being "official" and as a universal goal is central planning.

    And that never, ever works as well as competition and spontaneous order.

    The free market always trumps socialism.

    Standards committees are bureaucrats attempting some ivory tower guess at What Works Best, and such cannot be correct except by ultra-rare coincidence.

    The "experts" thought Beta was better than VHS, but they were wrong. They thought OS/2 was better than Windows, but they were wrong. Breast feeding bad, formula good...wrong. Make everyone wear shoes in public to cut foot fungus...wrong.

    The "experts" can almost never weigh what is right/wrong in such a way that they should be able to even encourage, much less force, everyone to put their eggs in one basket.

    That standards retard advancement is not so much an opinion, as a mathematical fact. The only way it could be good is if they magically got it perfectly, and they don't even have an effective metric for trying.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •