SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 119
  1. #51
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,269
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    The problem with this isn't this... the problem with this is it == global object in IE : (

    There are codes around it, and I could copy them, but I don't understand them. They dance around IE and sing voodoo songs to the Exploder Goddess : (

    ...however that is a very nice article. Perl uses "self" : )

  2. #52
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I got a FEVER, and the only PRESCRIPTION...is MOAR jQuery!!
    One of the best blog post I read (http://www.doxdesk.com/updates/2009....0091116-jquery ). And I tend to rely on Mootools to do lot of things when dynamic-goodies-adding-time comes.

  3. #53
    @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 markbrown4 View Post
    Ah deathshadow, Sitepoint has been far more boring without you
    You can say that again!

  4. #54
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,397
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the response. I can tell you're really passionate about this topic. Let me try to disect your argument. Again, this is just my opinion and from my experience. Look for bold text below.

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    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)

    Yes, JavaScript is what I considered gui libraries. I looked at YUI and I don't think it's crap. I really like EXT. You should check out http://www.extjs.com/deploy/dev/examples/ .

    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!!!

    Of course, bad codes are there because there are bad developers. They have the weapon to do so. Slashing the gui technology over bad developer is completely unfair. Also, those are what I called "bugs". If any developer say "All my codes are bug-free" are probably over their head.

    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!
    If you put that as one use case, then it's true. I can come up w/ many others to counter that. For example, let say a query that takes a good 5 minute to get the result from the back end. Out of those results, you can edit or delete those record of results. If you use ajax, then you can simply delete the row in the table and sent HTTP request to delete 1 record. If you didn't have AJAX, then you would have to reload the data that'll take another 5 min. So, I can clearly tell you that AJAX is very useful.


    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!!!
    You mention about the accessiblity. Flash is installed on 98% of the browser out there. If you need to create a site that is graphic intensive. Would you do it through javascript that you'll have browser compatiblity issues or do it in Flash? Of course, forcing everything into flash is just stupid. I guess those people are flashtards. However as of today, I believe flash gives the most gui features over javascript


    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".

    Stupid programmers can always break things. Not the fault of technology. If they want to stab themselves w/ a new technology, then let it be. There's no technology out there to prevent stupid coding.

    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?

    Again, using AJAX for static content is stupid.

    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.
    Believe it or not, Framesets is useful when it's used for the right reasons. Did you know that "Java" creates HTML documentation that uses framesets? As I said, each technology has it's use. If people want to use wrong technology for wrong reasons, let them be. It can't be taught by telling them.


    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.

    Seriously... bandwith is not the reason to avoid AJAX. Most web application bottle neck is at that database level w/ heavy queries. With ajax, you can make smaller queries.

    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!

    I'm sensing by now that you haven't seen a database size of petabytes! I'm not joking.

    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.

    I use jQuery and it is definitely in my top 3 weapons of choice. Who's with me? C'mon people!

    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.
    To put it bluntly, people want their results ASAP using whatever technology

    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!!!

    I'm the other way around. Why are you reinventing the wheel for 1000000 times? Use jQuery!
    Anyways, thanks for the food for thought. It's good to know the other side of opinions. My bet in my career path is to put those gui libraries in my belt is a good thing and not bad.

  5. #55
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    However as of today, I believe flash gives the most gui features over javascript
    Last time I let a flash site load, I could not open links from the flash part in another tab. Imagine this kind of limitation on the search results page of google.

  6. #56
    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 Arkh View Post
    Last time I let a flash site load, I could not open links from the flash part in another tab. Imagine this kind of limitation on the search results page of google.
    First of all you use technology where it is needed and second don't judge one bad implementation for the whole of a technology. You can open links from flash to any where.

    HTML has limits, CSS has limits, JavaScript has limits, ActionScript/Flash has limits... whatever comes next will have limits and bad implementations.

    Limit yourself from Flash and you will never understand what a web application really is or can do.
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  7. #57
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,269
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I like how people like to hold up examples of "accessible flash"... one of them was jkrowling's site. I dunno if it's still like that, this was a year or two ago. More than one web dev site claimed that the Flash there was great.

    So I checked it out. I don't have Flash. I saw nothing but a green screen and a single line of text. Accessible my ass. There was no non-Flash alternative. Not even a link to a page that had whatever the basics of the site were.

    Now maybe there was nothing on that site anyway and Flash made sense. I wouldn't know. I couldn't find anything on the site at all.

  8. #58
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    sg707 - 1) you might want to learn how to USE the quote bbCode... especially since the way you did it makes it a royal PITA to respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    Yes, JavaScript is what I considered gui libraries. I looked at YUI and I don't think it's crap. I really like EXT.
    Thing is, YUI or GRID for example uses presentational classes to apply everything - defeating the POINT of using CSS in the first damned place. If you are declaring classes that say how things are going to appear in the markup... classes like "left", "right" - YOU'VE MISSED THE POINT and are churning out the same bloated rubbish you'd get out of a WYSIWYG. Worse, most of the scripting is for cutesy crap that does NOTHING to improve the user experience.

    But take that EXT things's website - the stupid fade animation crap on load, the page content COMPLETELY falling apart with scripting disabled, fixed metric fonts that are COMPLETELY useless to large font users while the layout breaks if you dare to try and zoom in.

    That's before we take a look under the hood and realize these guys are the LAST people you should be taking web design advice from. No doctype, Inlined CSS, tables for layout, and begging the question WHAT THE **** DOES THAT PAGE EVEN NEED SCRIPTING FOR!!! Just so they can make some crappy little restricted size box in the middle of the screen with it's own scrollbar that the damned mouse-wheel won't even focus?

    ... and that's just the page LISTING the examples!

    It's a laundry list of how not to make a website - the only things missing are auto-playing music and marquee tags! The site ALONE should send up enough warning flags to make you not even want to THINK about using their libraries.

    Though, I'm not a big fan of animated ******** and lack of scripting off graceful degradation. I rollover a dropdowns parent I want the dropdown NOW, not after some stupid animation plays. I minimize a window, I want it gone NOW - NOT after some stupid animation plays. Get the idea? That's not 'enhancing the experience" that's "wasting the users time". I happen to turn javascript off because it's annoying the piss out of me, I shouldn't get a giant blank page.

    Much less their scripted trash being invisible to search engines, screen readers, and most handhelds. **** that.

    Their feed viewer demo being a great example of how NOT to build a website too. Loads by default empty here (since in Opera I have .js off and turn it on at a per-case basis, and in FF I use noscript) and even when it does load, holding up some crappy 8px fonts design with broken header orders, broken layout when you try to zoom to a useful size, one CPU core maxed out from the slow scripting, and blowing errors in Opera's scripting log by the dozens every time you click on something...

    NOT exactly blowing my skirt up.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    Of course, bad codes are there because there are bad developers. They have the weapon to do so. Slashing the gui technology over bad developer is completely unfair. Also, those are what I called "bugs". If any developer say "All my codes are bug-free" are probably over their head.
    Engisc moder wyrter? Lemme see if I can decipher what the devil you are even saying. You keep saying "GUI technology" - all the 'gui' tech you should need for a website that presents normal content is present in HTML/CSS - if you are using it for cutesy animated crap you are wasting everyones time, including your own. Such things are an accessibility /FAIL/ - and I've rarely seen a site coded using any of these ******** 'frameworks' that are even fit to wipe with!

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    If you put that as one use case, then it's true. I can come up w/ many others to counter that. For example, let say a query that takes a good 5 minute to get the result from the back end. Out of those results, you can edit or delete those record of results. If you use ajax, then you can simply delete the row in the table and sent HTTP request to delete 1 record. If you didn't have AJAX, then you would have to reload the data that'll take another 5 min. So, I can clearly tell you that AJAX is very useful.
    If you are transferring five minutes + of data as HTML, or taking as long to process the data server side as the connection timeout limit - your user interface and data structures are such total CRAP you have no *** business even WRITING websites. While I realize many people seem to have no problems with 200k HTML files, I tend to think a little cleaner than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    You mention about the accessiblity. Flash is installed on 98% of the browser out there. If you need to create a site that is graphic intensive. Would you do it through javascript that you'll have browser compatiblity issues or do it in Flash? Of course, forcing everything into flash is just stupid. I guess those people are flashtards. However as of today, I believe flash gives the most gui features over javascript
    If by gui 'features' you mean bloat for no good reason - honestly you shouldn't be resorting to either technology for your 'gui'... you keep using that term and it feels REALLY inappropriate. The GUI should be what the browser provides by it's processing of the data. If you are ****ing with doing anything above/beyond that you are probably making a steaming pile of /FAIL/ that takes minutes to load for most people - when all you are doing is delivering a couple K of plain text and one or two content images.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    I'm sensing by now that you haven't seen a database size of petabytes! I'm not joking.
    I'm taking it your petabyte sized databases don't have proper indexes on them. Lemme guess, JAVA and some form of XML databases (also not a fan of either of those)

    Though you are right, in those cases AJAX does make sense - but the problem is people are throwing it at EVERYTHING - from dropdown menus to static pages that would be smaller without it - to trying to make a link red on hover (No joke).

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    I'm the other way around. Why are you reinventing the wheel for 1000000 times? Use jQuery!
    Because in and of itself half of jquery is reinventing the wheel as it's just developers too lazy to type out the full name of existing functions or shoe-horning user objects into an INTERPRETED language (as if the system objects weren't bad enough), and the other half is goofy trash you shouldn't be wasting bandwidth and the users time on in the first place? Much less overtaxing your server and making your server side scripts take longer processing the code for?

    A good chunk of jquery is one step removed from half-assed design ideas like the marquee tag.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,397
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wish I could get offended with your responses but I can't stop laughing.

    the stupid fade animation crap on load, the page content COMPLETELY falling apart with scripting disabled
    You wanted to test fade functionality w/o JS on..ok...

    I rollover a dropdowns parent I want the dropdown NOW, not after some stupid animation plays. I minimize a window, I want it gone NOW - NOT after some stupid animation plays. Get the idea? That's not 'enhancing the experience" that's "wasting the users time".
    Wow.. you just ruined the concept of iPhone OS. So when you slide left or right. It shouldn't have any animation right? no animation at all.

    your user interface and data structures are such total CRAP you have no *** business even WRITING websites.
    Too funny but I'm glad I have a job and I believe I can write a pretty good web application.

    I'm taking it your petabyte sized databases don't have proper indexes on them
    this one I almost fell out of my chair. Ever heard of DBA? I guess you write such small application that one person can do everything.

    jquery is reinventing the wheel as it's just developers too lazy to type out the full name of existing functions or shoe-horning user objects into an INTERPRETED language (as if the system objects weren't bad enough), and the other half is goofy trash you shouldn't be wasting bandwidth and the users time on in the first place
    LOL...c'mon people! I know there are jQuery fans out there.

    Edit:


    leave out the personal insults please sg707
    Last edited by spikeZ; May 7, 2010 at 13:51.

  10. #60
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    I like how people like to hold up examples of "accessible flash"... one of them was jkrowling's site. I dunno if it's still like that, this was a year or two ago. More than one web dev site claimed that the Flash there was great.

    So I checked it out. I don't have Flash. I saw nothing but a green screen and a single line of text. Accessible my ass. There was no non-Flash alternative. Not even a link to a page that had whatever the basics of the site were.

    Now maybe there was nothing on that site anyway and Flash made sense. I wouldn't know. I couldn't find anything on the site at all.
    I fail to see your point? you went to a website and it was down?

    Judge a technology because a website is down... wow, and you're a mentor?
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  11. #61
    dooby dooby doo silver trophybronze trophy
    spikeZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    13,804
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    ooooooook, loving the discussion and passion - not loving the insults and *'s.

    Please keep it civil or the thread will be closed

    Ta

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

  12. #62
    dooby dooby doo silver trophybronze trophy
    spikeZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    13,804
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    I fail to see your point? you went to a website and it was down?

    Judge a technology because a website is down... wow, and you're a mentor?
    I dont think Poes meant that the site was down ie 404 not found, she meant that she visited without the flash plugin and therefore got a blank, green screen with a line of text.
    Mike Swiffin - Community Team Advisor
    Only a woman can read between the lines of a one word answer.....

  13. #63
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,269
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I fail to see your point? you went to a website and it was down?
    It wasn't down, it was claiming (well, no, the design sites were claiming) to be accessible. In general "accessible Flash" means that the content can be gotten to. Now some people consider merely having the "accessibility tags" that Adobe provides for their PDFs and Flash which allow Google to grab the text as "accessible Flash" (accessible to search engines) however they seemed to mean this was accesible to humans.

    Any all-Flash site who doesn't have a non-Flash version or some other method of getting to the content without my needing to download some 3rd-party closed-source plugin means it's not accessible. I also said that possibly the whole point of the site WAS the Flash— I don't know, I can't say the site claimed that because without Flash, there was no site, but this was what the design sites lauding it were saying.

    As for the mentor thing, don't think it means I know anything. I only have it because SpikeZ thinks I have a cute butt : )

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707
    You wanted to test fade functionality w/o JS on..ok...
    I got the impression that it wasn't the fades that were broken. Sites should not break when scripts are disabled (unless it's a game or a video site, and even then, simply the video should not play or the game should not run). You can tell a site was well-built and well-thought out if you don't notice scripts are off. Amazon.com is my example. I shop there without scripts, and I can order whatever I want and everything Just Works, which makes me a happy customer. And after all, it's not a game or a video site. It's a store. Everything should not need scripts to work. I should be talking via my client to their server, period.
    However, go to a Magento-run site (I have a client with one and am crawling through the CSS). Without JS on, you cannot select the (mandatory) colour of the product you want to buy. There's zero reason for that.

  14. #64
    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
    You wanted to test fade functionality w/o JS on..ok...
    No, I'm saying if you have javascript on you get this stupid slow fade in instead of a normal page load - so you dive to turn scripting off and thanks to the entire mess being DHTML there isn't even any content on the page without scripting - for what is a handful of content images and plaintext! The page listing the examples is a CLASSIC example of 'javascript for NOTHING' - well, nothing apart from a complete lack of accessibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    Wow.. you just ruined the concept of iPhone OS. So when you slide left or right. It shouldn't have any animation right? no animation at all.
    Actually, I find gesture interfaces annoying because they either don't work, or I'm pressing so hard I'm flexing the rinky little thing. Probably why I wouldn't spend money on one, as I'd rather just have a forward and back button, or maybe even a nice little slide-out keypad like on the VASTLY SUPERIOR Android based phones.

    But then, Apple is on my **** list too since I find every one of their user interface choices completely counterintuitive and counterproductive as well. Maybe at three decades I've just been at this for too long.

    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    this one I almost fell out of my chair. Ever heard of DBA? I guess you write such small application that one person can do everything.
    Again with the broken engrish... Are you saying you ARE a database administrator, or are you referring to something else? As if we're magically supposed to know details about who/what you are... or somehow make sense out of sentences without any determiners.

    Though I'm wondering if "ranguage rarrier" is an issue, as you seem to have completely misunderstood several of my statements, missed a couple joke and quick comebacks, and I'm having difficulty putting together a coherent understanding of your piecemeal posts.

  15. #65
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    It wasn't down, it was claiming (well, no, the design sites were claiming) to be accessible. In general "accessible Flash" means that the content can be gotten to. Now some people consider merely having the "accessibility tags" that Adobe provides for their PDFs and Flash which allow Google to grab the text as "accessible Flash" (accessible to search engines) however they seemed to mean this was accesible to humans.
    I believe "accessible flash" means that the flash website is accessible to people with disabilities, not that the website can be accessed without flash. Pretty big difference IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Any all-Flash site who doesn't have a non-Flash version or some other method of getting to the content without my needing to download some 3rd-party closed-source plugin means it's not accessible. I also said that possibly the whole point of the site WAS the Flash— I don't know, I can't say the site claimed that because without Flash, there was no site, but this was what the design sites lauding it were saying.
    There is nothing wrong with having to install a 3rd party closed source plugin. If it wasn't for closed source and non-standard software there wouldn't be as many advances. No one group can ever have power to influence. The world needs opposites. Flash has given us so many things that HTML, CSS and JavaScript can not and will not for years to come. But you already knew that, still not listening to the fact though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    As for the mentor thing, don't think it means I know anything. I only have it because SpikeZ thinks I have a cute butt : )
    Climbing the ranks ey, well that's one way to get a-head on the forums
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  16. #66
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,269
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I believe "accessible flash" means that the flash website is accessible to people with disabilities, not that the website can be accessed without flash. Pretty big difference IMO.
    That could have been what it meant... the pages referencing the rowling page (and other Flash sites) were talking about how everyone could get the content. It very well could be that they meant "everyone who happens to have Flash can now also use the keyboard and the Flash doesn't steal their page focus".
    There is nothing wrong with having to install a 3rd party closed source plugin. If it wasn't for closed source and non-standard software there wouldn't be as many advances.
    I very strongly disagree with this. There's nothing wrong with having to install a 3rd party closed source plugin to do something special like play a game or watch a video. However it should NEVER be forced merely to get to content (again unless the only content IS video/games/etc). Needing to download the Flash Player to bloat my browser (which, by the way, I don't even get a choice in... as a Linux user, my sole choice is Firefox, which I never ever want Flash on... if I want Flash on Opera or Chrome then it does not work without first sitting in the .mozilla directory... why "3rd party" and "closed source" really bother me here, I'm at the dangling whim of Adobe due to my not purchasing the OS of their choice) simply to find opening times of a business or their prices or any other plain text is totally not cool.
    Might as well feel ok about demanding certain OSes to view a web site, or certain browsers. Demand they have mice. Demand they have speakers. Demand they can see or hear. Maybe I'm just a dirty unwashed hippy but I believe in The Web For All, man. Not the same as "everyone can view a video with just HTML and CSS" or "anyone can run this application with just HTML and CSS", but Flash for those things aren't bothering me. HTML was created for the sharing of documents and information. If it's content, it should be available to all. It shouldn't even need CSS or Javascript. I believe a good developer is one who can make such a site.
    But you already knew that, still not listening to the fact though.
    Don't confuse me with those HTML5 people who are going around saying "Flash is dead because we have <canvas> and über-Javascript engines now." Flash has its place, and its use is limited due to the face that it relies on a 3rd party plugin. I do not need my bank statements to sing and dance or even make a little "blup!" sound when I click on the correct account.

    Flash has given us so many things that HTML, CSS and JavaScript can not and will not for years to come.
    Why is it okay to be used in PLACE of HTML, CSS, Javascript? That's my only beef with it (and I'm not saying that you are suggesting Flash should be in place of HTML etc, I'm explaining why I said what I said above). Advances, let those be for those with advanced computers, more memory, faster browsers, lots of bloataceous plugins. The problem is once people figure out they CAN turn a banking site into one big movie, then they DO it. That's not accessible, that's blocking content so other people get to sit through 3 minutes of INTRO... for no good reason. Oh wait, the Good Reason was, "it looks cool". Great. Fine. Now make that content accessible to the rest of us.
    I do applaud those who, when they DO make a page with a lot of Flash, that they work that much more to make it keyboard-accessible or keep the focus where the user wants and that sort of thing.

    So, was I wrong about the jkrowling site? I'll never know. I thought I'd be able to read something about jkrowling though. Or writing excerpts from new books. Or biographies on her characters. Or about her muse. Or whatever.

    Climbing the ranks ey, well that's one way to get a-head on the forums
    Climbing ranks, brownnosing, sycofantism, and being full of yourself is the ONLY want to get ahead on forums : ) Problem is, I'm STILL not getting any convertibles or money or even free dinners at fancy restaurants for it, so I'm starting to wonder if I picked the wrong place. *scratches head*

  17. #67
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    105
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    I wish I could get offended with your responses but I can't stop laughing.
    Yes, vintage comedy indeed.

    I've shown this thread to more than 30 people around the world and the overwhelming consensus is that Sitepoint is once again proving why it's the best in its class.

    Where else can you find such a blend of expertise, insight and humor?

    Congratulations to Mr Darth Vader for providing such entertainment.

    One day soon I might start a new thread entitled "why progress is important". Can you imagine the comedy that would ensue?

  18. #68
    dooby dooby doo silver trophybronze trophy
    spikeZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Manchester UK
    Posts
    13,804
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    As for the mentor thing, don't think it means I know anything. I only have it because SpikeZ thinks I have a cute butt : )
    aw hell yeah!

    Quote Originally Posted by andrew-bkk
    One day soon I might start a new thread entitled "why progress is important". Can you imagine the comedy that would ensue?
    it would be side splitting I'm sure
    Mike Swiffin - Community Team Advisor
    Only a woman can read between the lines of a one word answer.....

  19. #69
    SQL Consultant gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    r937's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    39,215
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spikeZ View Post
    it would be side splitting I'm sure
    beats the heck out of hair splitting any day

    rudy.ca | @rudydotca
    Buy my SitePoint book: Simply SQL
    "giving out my real stuffs"

  20. #70
    SitePoint Addict NetNerd85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    298
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yes you're right this place is a complete waste of time more often than not
    Last edited by Mittineague; May 9, 2010 at 00:28. Reason: keep it "family friendly" please
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  21. #71
    SitePoint Guru Chroniclemaster1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    784
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Having worked with visually and physically impaired users, I will concur that accessibility is about a lot more than just using some alt tags and some flash add-ons. The real key to accessibility is understanding that at rock bottom you are communicating to a machine. We're so used to working with HTML / CSS and seeing how they act in a browser, that it's easy to think we're building "that" for human users. But even the browser is just a translator, like all other accessible devices. The two most important things you can do for accessibility is sit down with your XHTML and just read it through line by line. If everything your page says is there and makes sense, then your code is LINEARIZED and you have all the information you need in TEXT.

    You can then add killer stylesheets and jQuery, any flash items you want on top of that; this in fact is the heart of progressive enhancement. But you start with TEXT and you make sure it's LINEARIZED. Every other guideline is WCAG 2.0 and Section 508 is either about that or about providing additional guidance beyond that fundamental base. That's what makes sure that it's machine readable which is this case means browsers, web service APIs, accessible devices (including braille displays and voice output software), etc.
    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.

  22. #72
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by NetNerd85 View Post
    First of all you use technology where it is needed and second don't judge one bad implementation for the whole of a technology. You can open links from flash to any where.

    HTML has limits, CSS has limits, JavaScript has limits, ActionScript/Flash has limits... whatever comes next will have limits and bad implementations.

    Limit yourself from Flash and you will never understand what a web application really is or can do.
    I think I may have not been clear : me, as a user, can't decide to open a flash link in another tab if I want. Not how the site designer wanted.

  23. #73
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Firstly, I agree entirely with everything deathshadow60 has said in this thread, it's about time we had someone helping to de-fluff half of the junk that gets passed around in the name of web standards or accessibility. Shaun said earlier that we're lucky that standards aren't law, personally I think they should be made like that, what makes web accessibility much harder for those of us trying to promote it is often down to people making up false statements like "accessible flash" which is a total contradiction of terms. The only way Flash can be truly accessible is if you provide HTML alternative content for when the plug-in isn't available or usable by the medium, anyone proclaiming Flash itself can be made accessible (for disabled users in the global sense) are simply blowing smoke, I've yet to see a single implementation which uses Flash (with no alternative) that can be labelled accessible. I think Hewitt has been sipping at the kool-aid if he really and honestly believes that pushing past the standards leads to anything good, have you seen the situation with rendering on the web?

    In one camp you have HTML5 with the Canvas element, a totally redundant and pointless extension which removes and takes away from the much more accessible and logical SVG format, to which didn't get much support in Internet Explorer because of their wishful innovation to produce VML as a result of their early obsession that the web would go 3D (as in VRML) and we would be floating around the web using some sort of Visor like we were in the movie Tron. And then you have Flash and Silverlight, trying to fill in the gaps using a proprietary extension because they got fed up with waiting for things to occur naturally... resulting in an inaccessible mostly un-usable seriously abused platform which has caused more damage to the integrity of web accessibility than anything else.

    You want to know what the future of the web looks like (if things carry on as they are)? A whole load of competing technologies equally discriminatory requiring certain browsers, certain users (with abilities) or certain extensions (required to be downloaded) all firing up around each other proclaiming themselves as some kind of solution (which gives some future scope to extending the web but just ends up complicating things further). Strip any website to it's core components, you don't need jQuery and all the clutter it bundles inside to "make things easier", you don't need plug-in's which shut half your audience in the dark... it really disturbs me how we're basically making the same mistakes of the past. I'm totally glad that Apple have given Flash the finger, it's about time the people who wouldn't know what progressive enhancement means if it slapped them in the face got a sharp intake of reality and are being forced to push themselves onto another medium (which will probably get mutilated due to the lazy way people refuse to acknowledge their audiences needs). The situation is a joke, people look to buzzwords like Flash and AJAX and jQuery without questioning whether they could go about it in a more appropriate way, and already I see absurd uses of the technologies which pollute the content integrity.

    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.
    Sorry but both Chrome and Opera are better than Firefox, with exception of the extensions, Firefox has become a bloated, overweight middle aged slacker

  24. #74
    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 AlexDawson View Post
    Firstly, I agree entirely with everything deathshadow60 has said in this thread, it's about time we had someone helping to de-fluff half of the junk that gets passed around in the name of web standards or accessibility. Shaun said earlier that we're lucky that standards aren't law, personally I think they should be made like that, what makes web accessibility much harder for those of us trying to promote it is often down to people making up false statements like "accessible flash" which is a total contradiction of terms. The only way Flash can be truly accessible is if you provide HTML alternative content for when the plug-in isn't available or usable by the medium, anyone proclaiming Flash itself can be made accessible (for disabled users in the global sense) are simply blowing smoke, I've yet to see a single implementation which uses Flash (with no alternative) that can be labelled accessible. I think Hewitt has been sipping at the kool-aid if he really and honestly believes that pushing past the standards leads to anything good, have you seen the situation with rendering on the web?

    In one camp you have HTML5 with the Canvas element, a totally redundant and pointless extension which removes and takes away from the much more accessible and logical SVG format, to which didn't get much support in Internet Explorer because of their wishful innovation to produce VML as a result of their early obsession that the web would go 3D (as in VRML) and we would be floating around the web using some sort of Visor like we were in the movie Tron. And then you have Flash and Silverlight, trying to fill in the gaps using a proprietary extension because they got fed up with waiting for things to occur naturally... resulting in an inaccessible mostly un-usable seriously abused platform which has caused more damage to the integrity of web accessibility than anything else.

    You want to know what the future of the web looks like (if things carry on as they are)? A whole load of competing technologies equally discriminatory requiring certain browsers, certain users (with abilities) or certain extensions (required to be downloaded) all firing up around each other proclaiming themselves as some kind of solution (which gives some future scope to extending the web but just ends up complicating things further). Strip any website to it's core components, you don't need jQuery and all the clutter it bundles inside to "make things easier", you don't need plug-in's which shut half your audience in the dark... it really disturbs me how we're basically making the same mistakes of the past. I'm totally glad that Apple have given Flash the finger, it's about time the people who wouldn't know what progressive enhancement means if it slapped them in the face got a sharp intake of reality and are being forced to push themselves onto another medium (which will probably get mutilated due to the lazy way people refuse to acknowledge their audiences needs). The situation is a joke, people look to buzzwords like Flash and AJAX and jQuery without questioning whether they could go about it in a more appropriate way, and already I see absurd uses of the technologies which pollute the content integrity.


    Sorry but both Chrome and Opera are better than Firefox, with exception of the extensions, Firefox has become a bloated, overweight middle aged slacker
    Everything? What are they your lover? No one could agree on everything.

    "accessible flash" is a flase statement but a means of communicating to try to get to a point, something you obviously could not see... and we all know why you can't see much

    "buzzwords like Flash and AJAX and jQuery", yeah Flash and jQuery aren't buzzwords love... might want to do a google to see what they are
    a new day, a new beginning
    never follow the crowd, the crowd is poor!

  25. #75
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,269
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    "buzzwords like Flash and AJAX and jQuery", yeah Flash and jQuery aren't buzzwords love... might want to do a google to see what they are
    He knows what they are, and you know he knows what they are.

    Companies ask for developers with experience "in AJAX., jQuery and Flash" because they see those things as hot and trendy, whether they actually need those technologies or not. You possibly haven't been unlucky enough to get a pointy-haired boss who points at some €40,000 entirely-Flash website and asks if you can "build a web shop like that".

    It's always been pretty easy for those with the newest fastest computers, the latest software, scripts enabled, and the biggest monitors to tell everyone else that they're "holding back the web".
    "The people have no bread, m'lady."
    "Duh, then like, totally let them eat cake!"
    If that doesn't sound discriminatory I dunno what does. But then, Hewitt certainly has those things, doesn't he?

    Off Topic:


    What are they your lover? ...something you obviously could not see... and we all know why you can't see much
    If you disagree with someone, simply say so. I've managed to go through this whole thread without calling you any names at all.


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
  •