SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 119
  1. #26
    Keep Moving Forward gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    Shaun(OfTheDead)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Trinidad
    Posts
    3,746
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is something I've been thinking about since Mobyme mentioned something similar sometime ago.

    I can say that for me, I've begun using the web-standards as general guidelines, but I'm not as religious about it as I once was. Which is to say, I use the standards to make sure my site works. To make sure it can safely run on most platforms.

    From there, though, I branch away from the rules to add on special features, or other functionality that can be more efficiently coded in another way (prime example is the target="_blank" attribute).



    One more thing...

    As web-designers, and most of us self-taught, we should count ourselves lucky that these rules are mere suggestions and not hard-and-fast law, or many of us would never have fumbled and experimented to get where we are today.

    Would you have built your first website if you needed a licence and a decade in school to do so?

    Trying to fill the unforgiving minute
    with sixty seconds' worth of distance run.

    Update on Sitepoint's Migration to Discourse

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Well, Joe Hewitt is saying that browser vendors shouldn't wait for standards because it slows/stops innovation. Mostly because of his drool-worthy love of Cocoa (sigh). He wasn't saying anything about us adhering so hard to the standards, however we do owe it to our users NOT to write in such a way as t force them to use some particular user agent...

    ...though he is talking about web apps. That crosses a line. At some point, an application, like a game, needs to demand something hardware- and software-wise. When it becomes a full-fledged web application, it's not longer a web document. HTML was created for web documents, not Desktop-imitating applications.

  3. #28
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,807
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by disgracian View Post
    So, are you just arguing for the sake of it or what?
    No. Some of the other posts since my first succeeded in modifying my opinion. I was shown that the specific example that I gave at the start was incorrect. The more general example I have subsequently given is still correct though and does relate back to the first since once you have iterated through the private standards/innovation loop a few times then public standards then become necessary in order to make further progress.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  4. #29
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    436
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    First browser to improve CSS wins.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ScallioXTX View Post
    To me it would seem it's an iterative process.

    First you have standards, then there are innovations that get included into the new standard, after which there are new innovations that get included into the even newer standard, etc

    So I think without standards there would be no (real) innovations, but without innovations there would be no (new) standards.
    This is exactly correct. Facebook has the luxury of dreaming fondly of the browser war days when people wrote one version of a website for each browser. Most of the rest of us, have to do things on a budget. My clients don't get their estimate and say "Hey, do you think you can double this?" So I appreciate that Facebook may be going in their own direction. However, I think for Hewitt to make these kind of statements about the web in general shows of lack of realism.
    Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
    Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

    Chroniclemaster1, Founder of Earth Chronicle
    A Growing History of our Planet, by our Planet, for our Planet.

  6. #31
    Web Host fcolor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    507
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The W3C standards help the web to look as a activity field "regulated" by some rules. I appreciate a lot the work of web developers like Mr. Hewitt, but they deal with innovations and are focused to invent things and to put them into practice. However it takes time for users to understand novelties and for companies to adopt them. I don't think that anyone would push this ahead.

    I'm glad tht we have a strong web standards. Otherwise it would be mess.
    HostColor.com
    Colocation | Dedicated Servers | VPS Hosting
    Web hosting provider since 2000

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast Adelante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Queensland Australia
    Posts
    55
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a passionate subject, personally I’m grateful to have standards to work with. Most of the innovation I’ve seen is making those standards do things that are perhaps outside the box they were designed for, if these methods become popular additional functionality is implemented in the standard to simplify these techniques. Great progress.

    The real trouble with standards is they’re run by committee (I’m sure that this falls into the category of a productivity joke) so progress is normally a slow democratic consensus or when consensus is eluded you end up with alternate standards and have the politics of each dominating the industry. If this is the crippling referred to then I’d have to agree. But I still believe standards are a very worthwhile thing to have.

    On a slightly different subject, we should think of the technology available when the web started, I remember using a 9600 baud modem and an early version of Netscape to browse static pages. Over the years bandwidth and technology and standards progressed, websites began to run more like programs and with today’s bandwidth they’re achieving amazing things.

    But here’s a point to consider, do we need web browsers anymore? Are their days numbered? Will operating systems become the browsers of tomorrow? Internet speeds are high enough to work with applications and give an excellent user experience, have a look at the number of phone and tablet apps available.

    Software vendors would then control the standards, developers will start to create methods outside the box that will become popular … here we go again.

  8. #33
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I think the guy is just upset Steve jobs don't like him flashing on the web.

  9. #34
    SitePoint Enthusiast willthiswork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    italy
    Posts
    58
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chroniclemaster1 View Post
    However, I think for Hewitt to make these kind of statements about the web in general shows of lack of realism.
    It is actually worse, it shows a very annoying attitude because nothing and nobody stops him to implement those "innovative" browser specific features as much as he likes. But he actually comes up with old, badly biased,totally wrong and already debated million of times crappy arguments against standards.
    While I'm writing this, I'm trying to plug my swiss-bought laptop into a german adapter in an italian socket, next time someone says standard are detrimental for innovation, I'm gonna fart really loud...

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I'll fart with you.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Can we just say Firefox is the best browser and kill the other ones? LOL.... only in my dream. I don't care what browser as long as they are multiplatform compatible (no IE!). Then, we don't need these standards to slow us down!!! What he says is true of the standards... for others they're excited to see new browser like Chrome..for me I see it as another browser to test on and more work...

  12. #37
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm going to start out with a minor correction. 99&#37; of what's being said about IE6 is also true of IE 5. The only MAJOR difference between IE6 and IE5.5 is the doctype trigger fixing the box model and IE6 obeying margin:auto; and even IE 5.0 has MOST of IE 5.5's functionality if you know what you are doing. (Only major thing missing I've ever had issues with was the lack of behaviors and expressions and some oddball text-align vs. float behaviors). Someone here mentioned XMLHTTPRequest - that *** goes back to Office 97.

    It was IE5 that drove the nail into Netscape's coffin and made Opera a non-player since it at least TRIED to implement CSS2 years before anyone else was even trying.

    Though in a lot of ways, the problems we see with IE today all stem from people deploying specifications that weren't even out of draft - it's why browsers specific 'features' are such a danger.

    In a lot of ways most of his arguments sound like me BEFORE 2004 - I said a lot of the same things... but to be honest most of that came from the fact that there were no practical alternatives to IE in the functionality department... Mozilla suite was a buggy bloated train-wreck, Opera was still barely giving us CSS 1 support, and there were no other REAL players in the market.

    But I think the focus of the entire discussion is missing the thing I realized that changed my viewpoint. When it comes right down to it people do NOT visit websites for the goofy animations, "gee ain't it neat" javascripted nonsense, or even the graphics hung on the layout or fancy layout chicanery. USERS visit websites for the CONTENT - the information presented on said sites.

    What do I mean by "gee ain't it neat" bull? 99% of what people are throwing jquery at these days is unnecessary bloat - about two thirds of what people are throwing AJAX at either consumes more bandwidth than flat pages would (see what's happening with webmail) ... and then you have the flashtards building entire sites out of flash or other "gee ain't it neat" technologies that are a complete accessibility /FAIL/, and if nothing else annoying as all hell when they blow 3 megabytes on delivering 3k of plaintext.

    There are useful web applications - but for every google docs there are a few thousand websites that blow javascripted crap like jquery and mootools on doing CSS' job, and result in several hundred K of javascript for NOTHING of any use to the end user.

    Just look at the steaming pile of crap vBulletin 4 has become with it's new skins - take the main index at digital point for example - they upgraded to it recently. 200k of markup, 226k of javascript on firstload, 75k of CSS - all to deliver 19k of plaintext (less than 10k of text that's actually visible to the user). Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to hang their head in shame. (that it abuses ordered lists and uses content cloaking to present tabular data just makes it worse)

    There is NO legitimate excuse for a forum index like theirs to consume more than 40k of HTML, 40k of CSS and maybe 40k of javascript apart from the ineptitude of the coders at vBull (who just keep layering hack upon hack over the core codebase from a decade ago). They've got balls of thunder to even THINK about charging for that fat bloated trash.

    A lot of it is just developers trying to stroke their own... ego. They're bragging "Look what I made it do" instead of "Yeah, but what good is it when it makes the page take three times longer to load and doesn't work for more than half the people out there?"

    The latter part of that being the problem with using any "browser specific" features or specifications not ready for real world deployment.

    That's actually part of what I consider to be HTML5's biggest shortcoming - while there's lots of "gee ain't it neat" stuff like SVG, you look at JUST HTML 5 core and CSS3 - and they really don't do anything we cannot do right now by other means. Sure it might be a bit more work - but most of the 'big' features people are clamoring for just aren't that impressive.

    It's made worse by HTML 5 seeming to have been hijacked by people who want to undo ALL of the progress we've made in STRICT - that being SIMPLER MARKUP and separation of presentation from content. Dan used to joke that the same people who made bloated nested table layouts now just make boated nested DIV layouts - with HTML5 now we have endless pointless nested presentational tags being feigned off as being 'semantic' (when most of them are NOT or are just a waste of time)

    The biggest thing strict brought us was LESS tags and attributes - want an example of HTML 5 undoing that? AUDIO and VIDEO, and making EMBED officially part of the spec - WHAT THE *****. HTML 4 had it right - OBJECT. Most people don't realize this, but OBJECT was even supposed to replace EMBED, APPLET, and even IMG - YES, I SAID IMG!!! The only reason it couldn't was IE being a retard about supporting it until IE8 (unless you have quicktime installed - no joke)

    The whole idea was if you are including an external file to be shown in the page, you have ONE tag to do it regardless of file type. Apparently that was too hard for people so instead we have to take a browser specific tag that's redundant and make it official, and add two new tags?

    As it stands most developers cannot even bother to learn about TH, TBODY, THEAD, TFOOT, CAPTION, LEGEND, LABEL, FIELDSET, ACRONYM, COL, COLGROUP, DFN, KBD, SAMP - hell most people can't even figure out how to use CODE properly and the only people who know ABBR are the microformat junkies... Now we add some twenty new tags and a equal number of attributes (weren't we supposed to be moving AWAY from having more attributes?) to make it 'better' and 'easier'? Yeah, RIGHT. I don't even want to THINK what Joe coder is going to do with HTML5 given that most developers still seem to have their heads wedged up 1998's backside.

    But really, it's NOT a question of "standards" or making it easy for developers or having new "features" - it's about what you can deliver to ALL users in the here and now. In the here and now new browser specific features and specifications not even out of draft are more harm than help. Oh noes, to support the majority of users you have to restrict yourself to HTML4/CSS2.1 with some minor bugfixes for IE6 - NOT THAT!?! That's why today my opinion is get off your lazy ass and code it properly to support as many users as possible, and forget all the extra bloated bull. There's a reason it's called WORK and not "Happy Happy Fun Time". Use that extra crap that doesn't work in IE on a clients page, show it to them in it's full glory, then enjoy explaining why NONE of it works in IE. They'll tell you where to shove your work - to the point it might not even be anatomically possible.

    If nothing else, it goes back to the original point of HTML. To present content in a device neutral manner so anyone anywhere can access it regardless of the capabilities of the user agent. It's WHY the HTML specification doesn't actually specify what the default appearance of 99% of the tags even should be - since that's ENTIRELY up to the user agent (browser for those of you who don't know the term).

    There's a reason I want to *****-slap the people who want to bring back the "best viewed in" nonsense like it was 1998... and that on my websites I usually put "Best viewed with eyeballs".

  13. #38
    @alexstanford Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Posts
    757
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I'm going to start out with a minor correction. 99&#37; of what's being said about IE6 is also true of IE 5. The only MAJOR difference between IE6 and IE5.5 is the doctype trigger fixing the box model and IE6 obeying margin:auto; and even IE 5.0 has MOST of IE 5.5's functionality if you know what you are doing. (Only major thing missing I've ever had issues with was the lack of behaviors and expressions and some oddball text-align vs. float behaviors). Someone here mentioned XMLHTTPRequest - that *** goes back to Office 97.

    It was IE5 that drove the nail into Netscape's coffin and made Opera a non-player since it at least TRIED to implement CSS2 years before anyone else was even trying.

    Though in a lot of ways, the problems we see with IE today all stem from people deploying specifications that weren't even out of draft - it's why browsers specific 'features' are such a danger.

    In a lot of ways most of his arguments sound like me BEFORE 2004 - I said a lot of the same things... but to be honest most of that came from the fact that there were no practical alternatives to IE in the functionality department... Mozilla suite was a buggy bloated train-wreck, Opera was still barely giving us CSS 1 support, and there were no other REAL players in the market.

    But I think the focus of the entire discussion is missing the thing I realized that changed my viewpoint. When it comes right down to it people do NOT visit websites for the goofy animations, "gee ain't it neat" javascripted nonsense, or even the graphics hung on the layout or fancy layout chicanery. USERS visit websites for the CONTENT - the information presented on said sites.

    What do I mean by "gee ain't it neat" bull? 99% of what people are throwing jquery at these days is unnecessary bloat - about two thirds of what people are throwing AJAX at either consumes more bandwidth than flat pages would (see what's happening with webmail) ... and then you have the flashtards building entire sites out of flash or other "gee ain't it neat" technologies that are a complete accessibility /FAIL/, and if nothing else annoying as all hell when they blow 3 megabytes on delivering 3k of plaintext.

    There are useful web applications - but for every google docs there are a few thousand websites that blow javascripted crap like jquery and mootools on doing CSS' job, and result in several hundred K of javascript for NOTHING of any use to the end user.

    Just look at the steaming pile of crap vBulletin 4 has become with it's new skins - take the main index at digital point for example - they upgraded to it recently. 200k of markup, 226k of javascript on firstload, 75k of CSS - all to deliver 19k of plaintext (less than 10k of text that's actually visible to the user). Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to hang their head in shame. (that it abuses ordered lists and uses content cloaking to present tabular data just makes it worse)

    There is NO legitimate excuse for a forum index like theirs to consume more than 40k of HTML, 40k of CSS and maybe 40k of javascript apart from the ineptitude of the coders at vBull (who just keep layering hack upon hack over the core codebase from a decade ago). They've got balls of thunder to even THINK about charging for that fat bloated trash.

    A lot of it is just developers trying to stroke their own... ego. They're bragging "Look what I made it do" instead of "Yeah, but what good is it when it makes the page take three times longer to load and doesn't work for more than half the people out there?"

    The latter part of that being the problem with using any "browser specific" features or specifications not ready for real world deployment.

    That's actually part of what I consider to be HTML5's biggest shortcoming - while there's lots of "gee ain't it neat" stuff like SVG, you look at JUST HTML 5 core and CSS3 - and they really don't do anything we cannot do right now by other means. Sure it might be a bit more work - but most of the 'big' features people are clamoring for just aren't that impressive.

    It's made worse by HTML 5 seeming to have been hijacked by people who want to undo ALL of the progress we've made in STRICT - that being SIMPLER MARKUP and separation of presentation from content. Dan used to joke that the same people who made bloated nested table layouts now just make boated nested DIV layouts - with HTML5 now we have endless pointless nested presentational tags being feigned off as being 'semantic' (when most of them are NOT or are just a waste of time)

    The biggest thing strict brought us was LESS tags and attributes - want an example of HTML 5 undoing that? AUDIO and VIDEO, and making EMBED officially part of the spec - WHAT THE *****. HTML 4 had it right - OBJECT. Most people don't realize this, but OBJECT was even supposed to replace EMBED, APPLET, and even IMG - YES, I SAID IMG!!! The only reason it couldn't was IE being a retard about supporting it until IE8 (unless you have quicktime installed - no joke)

    The whole idea was if you are including an external file to be shown in the page, you have ONE tag to do it regardless of file type. Apparently that was too hard for people so instead we have to take a browser specific tag that's redundant and make it official, and add two new tags?

    As it stands most developers cannot even bother to learn about TH, TBODY, THEAD, TFOOT, CAPTION, LEGEND, LABEL, FIELDSET, ACRONYM, COL, COLGROUP, DFN, KBD, SAMP - hell most people can't even figure out how to use CODE properly and the only people who know ABBR are the microformat junkies... Now we add some twenty new tags and a equal number of attributes (weren't we supposed to be moving AWAY from having more attributes?) to make it 'better' and 'easier'? Yeah, RIGHT. I don't even want to THINK what Joe coder is going to do with HTML5 given that most developers still seem to have their heads wedged up 1998's backside.

    But really, it's NOT a question of "standards" or making it easy for developers or having new "features" - it's about what you can deliver to ALL users in the here and now. In the here and now new browser specific features and specifications not even out of draft are more harm than help. Oh noes, to support the majority of users you have to restrict yourself to HTML4/CSS2.1 with some minor bugfixes for IE6 - NOT THAT!?! That's why today my opinion is get off your lazy ass and code it properly to support as many users as possible, and forget all the extra bloated bull. There's a reason it's called WORK and not "Happy Happy Fun Time". Use that extra crap that doesn't work in IE on a clients page, show it to them in it's full glory, then enjoy explaining why NONE of it works in IE. They'll tell you where to shove your work - to the point it might not even be anatomically possible.

    If nothing else, it goes back to the original point of HTML. To present content in a device neutral manner so anyone anywhere can access it regardless of the capabilities of the user agent. It's WHY the HTML specification doesn't actually specify what the default appearance of 99% of the tags even should be - since that's ENTIRELY up to the user agent (browser for those of you who don't know the term).

    There's a reason I want to *****-slap the people who want to bring back the "best viewed in" nonsense like it was 1998... and that on my websites I usually put "Best viewed with eyeballs".
    Extremely well said and accurate. Great post.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, what deathshadow60 said
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I'm going to start out with a minor correction. 99% of what's being said about IE6 is also true of IE 5. The only MAJOR difference between IE6 and IE5.5 is the doctype trigger fixing the box model and IE6 obeying margin:auto; and even IE 5.0 has MOST of IE 5.5's functionality if you know what you are doing. (Only major thing missing I've ever had issues with was the lack of behaviors and expressions and some oddball text-align vs. float behaviors). Someone here mentioned XMLHTTPRequest - that *** goes back to Office 97.

    It was IE5 that drove the nail into Netscape's coffin and made Opera a non-player since it at least TRIED to implement CSS2 years before anyone else was even trying.

    Though in a lot of ways, the problems we see with IE today all stem from people deploying specifications that weren't even out of draft - it's why browsers specific 'features' are such a danger.

    In a lot of ways most of his arguments sound like me BEFORE 2004 - I said a lot of the same things... but to be honest most of that came from the fact that there were no practical alternatives to IE in the functionality department... Mozilla suite was a buggy bloated train-wreck, Opera was still barely giving us CSS 1 support, and there were no other REAL players in the market.

    But I think the focus of the entire discussion is missing the thing I realized that changed my viewpoint. When it comes right down to it people do NOT visit websites for the goofy animations, "gee ain't it neat" javascripted nonsense, or even the graphics hung on the layout or fancy layout chicanery. USERS visit websites for the CONTENT - the information presented on said sites.

    What do I mean by "gee ain't it neat" bull? 99% of what people are throwing jquery at these days is unnecessary bloat - about two thirds of what people are throwing AJAX at either consumes more bandwidth than flat pages would (see what's happening with webmail) ... and then you have the flashtards building entire sites out of flash or other "gee ain't it neat" technologies that are a complete accessibility /FAIL/, and if nothing else annoying as all hell when they blow 3 megabytes on delivering 3k of plaintext.

    There are useful web applications - but for every google docs there are a few thousand websites that blow javascripted crap like jquery and mootools on doing CSS' job, and result in several hundred K of javascript for NOTHING of any use to the end user.

    Just look at the steaming pile of crap vBulletin 4 has become with it's new skins - take the main index at digital point for example - they upgraded to it recently. 200k of markup, 226k of javascript on firstload, 75k of CSS - all to deliver 19k of plaintext (less than 10k of text that's actually visible to the user). Whoever thought this was a good idea needs to hang their head in shame. (that it abuses ordered lists and uses content cloaking to present tabular data just makes it worse)

    There is NO legitimate excuse for a forum index like theirs to consume more than 40k of HTML, 40k of CSS and maybe 40k of javascript apart from the ineptitude of the coders at vBull (who just keep layering hack upon hack over the core codebase from a decade ago). They've got balls of thunder to even THINK about charging for that fat bloated trash.

    A lot of it is just developers trying to stroke their own... ego. They're bragging "Look what I made it do" instead of "Yeah, but what good is it when it makes the page take three times longer to load and doesn't work for more than half the people out there?"

    The latter part of that being the problem with using any "browser specific" features or specifications not ready for real world deployment.

    That's actually part of what I consider to be HTML5's biggest shortcoming - while there's lots of "gee ain't it neat" stuff like SVG, you look at JUST HTML 5 core and CSS3 - and they really don't do anything we cannot do right now by other means. Sure it might be a bit more work - but most of the 'big' features people are clamoring for just aren't that impressive.

    It's made worse by HTML 5 seeming to have been hijacked by people who want to undo ALL of the progress we've made in STRICT - that being SIMPLER MARKUP and separation of presentation from content. Dan used to joke that the same people who made bloated nested table layouts now just make boated nested DIV layouts - with HTML5 now we have endless pointless nested presentational tags being feigned off as being 'semantic' (when most of them are NOT or are just a waste of time)

    The biggest thing strict brought us was LESS tags and attributes - want an example of HTML 5 undoing that? AUDIO and VIDEO, and making EMBED officially part of the spec - WHAT THE *****. HTML 4 had it right - OBJECT. Most people don't realize this, but OBJECT was even supposed to replace EMBED, APPLET, and even IMG - YES, I SAID IMG!!! The only reason it couldn't was IE being a retard about supporting it until IE8 (unless you have quicktime installed - no joke)

    The whole idea was if you are including an external file to be shown in the page, you have ONE tag to do it regardless of file type. Apparently that was too hard for people so instead we have to take a browser specific tag that's redundant and make it official, and add two new tags?

    As it stands most developers cannot even bother to learn about TH, TBODY, THEAD, TFOOT, CAPTION, LEGEND, LABEL, FIELDSET, ACRONYM, COL, COLGROUP, DFN, KBD, SAMP - hell most people can't even figure out how to use CODE properly and the only people who know ABBR are the microformat junkies... Now we add some twenty new tags and a equal number of attributes (weren't we supposed to be moving AWAY from having more attributes?) to make it 'better' and 'easier'? Yeah, RIGHT. I don't even want to THINK what Joe coder is going to do with HTML5 given that most developers still seem to have their heads wedged up 1998's backside.

    But really, it's NOT a question of "standards" or making it easy for developers or having new "features" - it's about what you can deliver to ALL users in the here and now. In the here and now new browser specific features and specifications not even out of draft are more harm than help. Oh noes, to support the majority of users you have to restrict yourself to HTML4/CSS2.1 with some minor bugfixes for IE6 - NOT THAT!?! That's why today my opinion is get off your lazy ass and code it properly to support as many users as possible, and forget all the extra bloated bull. There's a reason it's called WORK and not "Happy Happy Fun Time". Use that extra crap that doesn't work in IE on a clients page, show it to them in it's full glory, then enjoy explaining why NONE of it works in IE. They'll tell you where to shove your work - to the point it might not even be anatomically possible.

    If nothing else, it goes back to the original point of HTML. To present content in a device neutral manner so anyone anywhere can access it regardless of the capabilities of the user agent. It's WHY the HTML specification doesn't actually specify what the default appearance of 99% of the tags even should be - since that's ENTIRELY up to the user agent (browser for those of you who don't know the term).

    There's a reason I want to *****-slap the people who want to bring back the "best viewed in" nonsense like it was 1998... and that on my websites I usually put "Best viewed with eyeballs".
    This read has been very entertaining . Yes, it's valid to say "USERS visit websites for the CONTENT" however I don't think it's the only "major" reason either. AJAX, Flash, and other gui libraries are there to make it the UI more user friendly. You're definitely naive to say flash is flashtard, AJAX is causing more harm than good. Regardless, very entertaining read .

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    sg707: making things more friendly for some is the problem not in and of itself, but because it's always deployed by developers who do it in a way that makes things harder or impossible to use for the others.

    All I will say is Facebook on Konqueror Desktop browser and I can rest my case. What a terrible way to build something whose BASIC functionality doesn't need all that stuff that now is the ONLY way it works. And I'm not talking about the back end, I don't know a server back end from my own. But they don't even have real hyperlinks on that site anymore. JS library love, all of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by drHouse
    But I think the focus of the entire discussion is missing the thing I realized that changed my viewpoint. When it comes right down to it people do NOT visit websites for the goofy animations, "gee ain't it neat" javascripted nonsense, or even the graphics hung on the layout or fancy layout chicanery. USERS visit websites for the CONTENT - the information presented on said sites.
    However, people are starting to go for the application itself more than the content. People are going to Do Things instead of Read Things. HTML was designed, wholly and completely, for sharing documents. It was never going to Do Stuff. Well, now people want it to Do Stuff. They want it to act like their Desktop (hell, replace their desktop), they want it to keep track of their days, play with their photos, do their banking, wash their windows.
    The want the web to control their flying cars and robot maids from some small trendy silver iWhatever. They want it to remove their cavities, and Painless Only.

    HTML is being asked to do more than it ever should. It's becoming Media this and Application that. I don't think that's going to just be a side job. It's going to become people's calendars, their computers, their telephone, their TV, their movies, their music, their bank, their everything.

    But, none of that is a disagreement. It's just the future I see.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard webcosmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,480
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just spent good half day fixing some code that does not work only in IE7!

    Innovative my ...s.

    May be a better solution is find ideas, submit to W3C and others for review, if approved have it widely used by all.

  18. #43
    Life is short. Be happy today! silver trophybronze trophy Sagewing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Denver, Phang-Nga, Thailand
    Posts
    4,379
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Someone has things backwards in their thinking since standards are a necessary precursor to innovation. Without standards there is no time to consider innovation.

    As for developers asking Microsoft to follow the standards - it wasn't a request to stop innovation, it was a request to make sure that the browser can display basic web pages properly before worrying about adding something fancy.

    If innovation were a building then standards are the land the building sits on. Remove the land and the building will collapse.
    Well put.
    The fewer our wants, the nearer we resemble the gods. — Socrates

    SAGEWING LLC - QUALITY WEB AND MOBILE APPS. PREMIUM OUTSOURCING SERVICES.
    Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook | Google+

  19. #44
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,807
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    Can we just say Firefox is the best browser and kill the other ones? LOL.... only in my dream.
    Since Firefox isn't the best browser why should we say that it is. The best browser is probably one of the obscre ones that almost no one has even heard of but of the really popular browsers there are three that are far superior to Firefox so even there it isn't the best.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  20. #45
    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 webcosmo View Post
    I just spent good half day fixing some code that does not work only in IE7!
    How do you spend half a day fixing code? Seriously?
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  21. #46
    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 sg707 View Post
    AJAX, Flash, and other gui libraries are there to make it the UI more user friendly.
    On AJAX I can agree that it's what it SHOULD be used for, but on the other two not so much. (I'm assuming by GUI libraries you mean javascript libraries - don't even get me STARTED if you mean complete crap like grid or YUI)

    Fat slow poorly written bloat that takes minutes to load is NOT more 'user friendly'... Navigations that don't work when said technologies are missing or content that outright disappears or cannot even be accessed is NOT more user friendly... When said technologies break the normal browser behavior like forward, back, middle-click for a new tab, or even just being able to copy a direct link to something - that's NOT user friendly!!!

    In most cases these technologies result in an accessibility train wreck... and long term means slowdowns or cutting into your profit margin through enlarged hosting costs - PATHETIC when most of the time many of these technologies are sold to the suits as saving bandwidth; the exact OPPOSITE of what they actually DO!

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    You're definitely naive to say flash is flashtard
    Flashtard is a common derogatory term for developers who make their ENTIRE site in flash, or waste flash on stuff that HTML/CSS can do just fine without it. You make your site's primary navigation in Flash, you're a flashtard. You waste my time on a one minute pageload of flash to show 2k of plaintext in a size too small for me to read in some goofy serif font that renders like ass so small with some goof-assed animation around it - you're a flashtard. If you provide no fallbacks for flash disabled to users who want to tell you where to shove the bloat - You're a #DDD (Carlos Mencia gray) flashtard!

    Flash is FINE for what it does well - videos and games... It should be the LAST tool looked at for something as simple as a banner, menu, or other standard page content... and lands sake if you're going to use it for something other than video's and flash games, INCLUDE FALLBACK CONTENT!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    You're definitely naive to say*snip* AJAX is causing more harm than good.
    Have you seen the latest incarnation of Hotmail? Eh? Breaks conventional navigation, makes even a normal 'search' next to useless, blows over 500k on delivering 2-3k of plaintext? All to make it "better".

    Great example of AJAX abuse doing 'harm' would be AJAX for tabbed content. Not only does it mean you are wasting bandwidth on scripting to do what static content should, you are STILL doing the extra handshake so there's no change in server load, and it's a complete accessibility /FAIL/ and not to great for SEO purposes either. Done right they shouldn't even USE AJAX and just hide the content of the other tabs - that way if scripting is disabled the full content is shown... but even that is a miserable /FAIL/ since it usually means good luck for the user to direct link to it. Again it's even more pathetic when they sell people on the idea of it as saving bandwidth - when they are using 300K to a megabyte to deliver 5-10k of plaintext... To hell with that type of thinking. Ever hear of code to content ratio? Anything more than 3:1 is complete rubbish, and 2:1 or less is probably better for anything with more than 8k of CDATA?

    Dan Schulz once called AJAX based tabs the new Framesets... If you don't know what's wrong with using framesets, you probably don't understand what's wrong with AJAX only static content either.

    Certainly AJAX is great for things like inline edits on forums, developing full blown applications like google docs, etc, etc... but lands sake it is NOT the be all end-all solution people make it out to be and should NOT be wasted on static content... and it should NOT require 100K+ libraries just to implement it.

    Which is where the STUPID MALFING script libraries come into play... Not only is it outright idiotic to be using hundred K+ libraries (just how *** big is prototype now?) in an INTERPRETED language, MOST of the time the resulting actual scripts that do something are BIGGER and SLOWER than if you got off your tuchas and wrote the bloody thing correctly without the half-assed library in the first damned place!

    There's a reason I lump Jquery, MooTools, Prototype and their kin in the same bin I put Frontpage. (along with "grid" and "YUI"). The complete TRASH code people vomit up using these crutches usually ends up just as bad as the worst of the WYSIWYGS.

    But most people just want to sleaze out a website any old way and to blazes with accessibility, ease of use, or even a practical bandwidth footprint... Hell most 'developers' these days don't even know what a handshake is or why too many of them is a bad thing.

    It's why 99% of the time I see someone asking for help with something done in jquery my first reaction after looking at their site is "What the **** are you even using jquery FOR!?! Just TRYING to bloat out the site for no good reason?" - I swear, all these scripting libraries are a blight upon the internet... Making the UI better? --- HARDLY! EXACT ******** OPPOSITE!!!

  22. #47
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh, one other point that occurred to me - kind of shoots down Hewitt's arguement...

    One of the things that drove IE's "innovation" over that time period he holds up as an example... was in fact Microsoft SUPPORTING the standards when Netscape wasn't. MOST of what could be considered 'innovative' about the IE 5 through 6 development cycle were present in 5.0 - it's just it took a few years for people to even start using them... since for the most part it wasn't until around 2002 it was practical to start telling Netscape 4.x users where to shove it.

    The only things that came in 5.5 and later were expressions and behavior files - both of which are basically used nowadays ONLY for bugfixes as no other browser have them - and IE6 giving the doctype box model and margin:auto fix...

    Even IE 5.0 had XMLHTTPRequest... That's where it originated... To say they were innovating from 1998 onward is a bit of a stretch, most of the innovation was in IE 5.0, while 5.2 mac, 5.5 and 6 were all little more than bugfixes to try and get closer to the standards... and even then what made IE 5.0 so 'innovative' were the attempts to support the standards...

    The same way Webkit is today.

  23. #48
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Ah deathshadow, Sitepoint has been far more boring without you

  24. #49
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It's why 99% of the time I see someone asking for help with something done in jquery my first reaction after looking at their site is "What the **** are you even using jquery FOR!?! Just TRYING to bloat out the site for no good reason?"
    Unfortunately, in the JS Live course I'm going through now, we're using jQuery: mostly only to get around the two-version of attachEvent and addEventLoader (or was it Listener?) and to get "this" working. I can do the events without jQuery but I now realise that a script I was working on months ago that worked everywhere but IE, the problem wasn't just the nextSiblings, it was using "this". So I still don't know how to get my old scripts working, except I know I can add a <script> tag calling some jQuery and suddenly "this" will work. : ( Not a happy camper with that one. I wouldn't want to load a whole library with lots of garbage just to get one thing to work, but I would say that may be why many simple sites with simple JS doing little things have an expanding-waistline library sitting on them.

  25. #50
    Utopia, Inc. silver trophy
    ScallioXTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,062
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Unfortunately, in the JS Live course I'm going through now, we're using jQuery: mostly only to get around the two-version of attachEvent and addEventLoader (or was it Listener?) and to get "this" working. I can do the events without jQuery but I now realise that a script I was working on months ago that worked everywhere but IE, the problem wasn't just the nextSiblings, it was using "this". So I still don't know how to get my old scripts working, except I know I can add a <script> tag calling some jQuery and suddenly "this" will work. : ( Not a happy camper with that one. I wouldn't want to load a whole library with lots of garbage just to get one thing to work, but I would say that may be why many simple sites with simple JS doing little things have an expanding-waistline library sitting on them.
    this in JavaScript is indeed a weird thing.
    Like you I was always struggling with it, until I read this article @ ALA.
    It was a real eye-opener for me


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
  •