SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48
  1. #26
    Robert Wellock silver trophybronze trophy xhtmlcoder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    A Maze of Twisty Little Passages
    Posts
    6,316
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some people also apply 'user style sheets' that override a site's original style rather than a straight disable.

  2. #27
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I find the 2% number a bit hard to believe -- ridiculously low; Either that or new englanders are a bunch of {expletive omitted} who make up 90% of that 2%.

    In any case, even at 2% you have to ask "2% of what?"

    The answer is 2% of 2 billion people -- in other words 40 million people. It's easy to dismiss 2%, it's not so easy to dismiss 40 million...

    When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill a million, it is a statistic -- Joseph Stalin

    In any case, the PURPOSE of your base HTML should be to convey the information on the page WITHOUT CSS or javascript. If it cannot do that, you aren't using HTML properly. PERIOD. END OF STORY -- now with people still vomiting up presentational HTML 3.2 and slapping either a 4 tranny or 5 lip-service on it, it's not surprising by the time people 'master' CSS or javascript they vomit up broken crap that completely forgets the PURPOSE of each of those technologies.

    But really, if you aren't coding progressive enhancement so you can have graceful degradation on a 'normal' website, you're probably making dozens of other half-assed decisions when it comes to building your site.

    Though honestly, things like "news rotators" just piss me off as a user in the first place -- file it alongside other miserable malfing failures at web design like 400px tall banners across the top, marquee tags, and all the other idiocy that makes the 'sick fad' rounds every few months and that sleazeball scam artist PSD jockeys prey on the ignorance of nubes with.

    Can you tell my disgust for the industry as a whole is back in full force?

    Quote Originally Posted by xhtmlcoder View Post
    Some people also apply 'user style sheets' that override a site's original style rather than a straight disable.
    You mean Opera users... Like me... Lost count of how often I end up needing information off some broken ass site, and go to View -> Style -> Accessibility Layout or one of the other stylesheets to pitch some dumbass layout in the trash and use one I can actually plowing READ instead.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Enthusiast 3dy.ro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some people tend to forget that there are robots who visit their sites too. And these robots also appear in statistics, and are reported to have JavaScript disabled.

    Just think a little about it... JavaScript disabled prevents people do even the most basic of tasks, such as watching YouTube videos.

    I personally make sure that my sites are functional even with JavaScript turned off.

    And regarding CSS turned off... well, I consider this madness, somehow.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Can you tell my disgust for the industry as a whole is back in full force?
    Back? It was gone?

    Some people tend to forget that there are robots who visit their sites too. And these robots also appear in statistics, and are reported to have JavaScript disabled.
    Yahoo claims they accounted for robots and did not include them in their 2%.

    Just think a little about it... JavaScript disabled prevents people do even the most basic of tasks, such as watching YouTube videos.
    That's YouTube's fault: nothing stopping someone with a graphics card and drivers the ability to download and watch a video, but YouTube does not offer that. They also choose not to offer basic text to those without Javascript. You can also log in without Javascript, but not log out.

    This has nothing to do with some limitation or magical ability of Javascript; it's choices made by developers, period.
    (You don't need Flash or Javascript to watch a video in <video> tags from HTML5, assuming you have a UA who can do something useful with <video> and there's a video available in whichever codec your browser/system supports... plenty of if's, but also shows how JS has little to do with videos)

    And regarding CSS turned off... well, I consider this madness, somehow.
    No, it's Sparta.

    Since CSS is to make stuff look pretty, I don't consider it necessary. Very nice, but not necessary. Since we're not supposed to be relying on things like colour as sole conveyers of information, our markup should already be doing as much of a bang-up job as it can. HTML is the body. CSS is clothing. In many cases on the web, the CSS is just hiding fat rolls and missing parts. But again, that's because of developers, not anything intrinsic in HTML, CSS or UAs.


    Off Topic:

    and those fat rolls sometimes have coins in them, just sayin

  5. #30
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You don't even need Javascript to make Flash work.

    And yes, if you're page isn't at least understandable without CSS, you aren't doing very semantic HTML.

    If you use just h1-h6, p, ul, ol, li, a, and img (properly), you should have a very legible site with CSS off. Add in even more semantic elements (blockquote, cite, etc), you get an even more legible site with CSS off.

    Put everything in divs and you get... GIANT TEXT WALL OF DOOM!!!!

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    You don't even need Javascript to make Flash work.
    Not in real life, but many sites (not YouTube) like to use SWFObject etc.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    SWFObject allows you to embed it in a way that doesn't require scripting:
    If you have the Flash plug-in installed, but have JavaScript disabled or a use a browser that doesn't support JavaScript, you will still be able to see your Flash content
    documentation - swfobject - Embedding Adobe Flash Player content using SWFObject 2 - SWFObject is an easy-to-use and standards-friendly method to embed Flash content, which utilizes one small JavaScript file - Google Project Hosting

  8. #33
    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 samanime View Post
    Put everything in divs and you get... GIANT TEXT WALL OF DOOM!!!!
    Usually with ten times as many ID's and classes as necessary too... see the difference between 8k of semantic markup and 80k of "sleaze it out any old way" just for 3k of plaintext and a handful of content images...

    As the old rule goes, the less code there is, the less there is to break... and the less there is to overload your server or drive up your hosting costs/needs.

    Which of course is where the "but everyone has broadband" nonsense falls flat on it's face, as it's not just about the client's capabilities... and why I laugh at the pathetic multi-megabyte train wrecks people try to call websites, and then wonder why they only get a hundred visits or less a week.

  9. #34
    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 3dy.ro View Post
    And regarding CSS turned off... well, I consider this madness, somehow.
    You wouldn't say that if you were on a smartphone with a tiny data plan .. or in canada where they're implementing "pay as you go" across all ISP's... or in places like Coos County NH, or the dakota's were 33.6 dialup is a good day.-- turning off CSS kills presentational images (or should if the page is coded properly)... It is often killed WITH images by people on lesser data plans...

    Though turning off just images is much more common in those cases. It's often easy to forget when living in area's with population densities high enough to have cheap broadband that there are places where the typical response is "broadband, what's that" -- or you end up paying through the nose for something crappy like Hughesnet.

    I mean, where I live sure, for $60/mo I can get 15mpbs/1mbps... but the majority of my neighbors are paying $15/mo for 768kbps/384kbps... and let me tell you, they're none too happy with a lot of todays crappy bloated sites.

    ... and it only looks to get worse, not better as in a receding economy NOBODY is willing to pony up the front money to build more infrastructure; as such as more and more people come online the existing infrastructure has to be doled out in smaller and smaller morsels -- net result? Hello Canada... Hello bandwidth caps, pay for overages -- see what happened with dialup where it started out unlimited, but as the system became taxed the prices skyrocketed and many ISP's implemented caps with overages. We're just repeating that again now!

    Madness? Madness is not using HTML properly -- if you code semantically using the HTML tags for *SHOCK* WHAT THEY ARE FOR you should have CSS off graceful degradation AUTOMATICALLY for no extra effort!!! -- in fact, it usually results in less markup, cleaner/easier to maintain code, and quite often lower bandwidth use with less work involved in actually building your pages.

    But of course, in the world of people vomiting up HTML 3.2 any old way and slapping a 4 tranny or 5 lip-service on it... such sensible decisions are outright alien.

  10. #35
    Community Advisor silver trophy

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,559
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Here's some more made up stats:

    99% of anti-javascript zealots can't back up their belief that 'loads of people don't use it' with any facts, evidence or attributable statistics.

    99% of unemotional, impartial, machine gathered statistics from zillions of pageviews disagree with them.

    99% of anti-javascript zealots believe the methods used to gather these stats are flawed, that no stats gathering organisations like google employ anybody vaguely intelligent, and that only they could program the one true way to prove everybody dislikes javscript

    99% of ordinary web surfing folks don't care and happily enjoy surfing farmville, facebook and hotmail while unknowingly slurping huge amounts of that nasty javascript over their interpipery.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    99% of ordinary web surfing folks don't care and happily enjoy surfing farmville, facebook and hotmail while unknowingly slurping huge amounts of that nasty javascript over their interpipery.
    Bully for them, then.

    But I'm in the tiny ignored minority about whom web developers (most of them at least) apparently don't care. Because their bad coding and design so often causes problems, I browse all but a very small number of websites with no javascript and a custom stylesheet (if I'm using Firefox) to improve readability.

    These people who disable Javascript are one[s] who are techy and if they [see] something wrong they will automatically turn it on.
    No. I don't consider myself to be "techy" (certainly not before I started using the web and became interested in web development) and if I find a significant problem caused by the absence of javascript, I will go elsewhere if necessary, unless it is unavoidable (e.g. for that small number of websites).

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoast View Post
    Here's some more made up stats:

    99% of anti-javascript zealots can't back up their belief that 'loads of people don't use it' with any facts, evidence or attributable statistics.

    99% of unemotional, impartial, machine gathered statistics from zillions of pageviews disagree with them.

    99% of anti-javascript zealots believe the methods used to gather these stats are flawed, that no stats gathering organisations like google employ anybody vaguely intelligent, and that only they could program the one true way to prove everybody dislikes javscript

    99% of ordinary web surfing folks don't care and happily enjoy surfing farmville, facebook and hotmail while unknowingly slurping huge amounts of that nasty javascript over their interpipery.
    Agree, to an extent. =p

    Even if .1% didn't have Javascript, I'd still make my site functional without it.

  13. #38
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,869
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    What you need to remember is that there are five parts to a web page, not just three.

    The page author has control of the content via the HTML.

    The page author can suggest the appearance via their CSS.

    The visitor has final control of the appearance via their CSS.

    The page author can suggest behaviour via JavaScript.

    The visitor has final control of behaviour via their JavaScript.

    Both the author and visitor can attach CSS and JavaScript to web pages and where both are enabled by the visitor their own takes precedence. Most visitors who do use their own CSS and JavaScript will have it apply to all web pages regardless of where they come from.

    The only thing that the page author can guarantee will actually be downloaded by visitors is the HTML.

    If your web page doesn't work with your HTML and your visitors CSS and JavaScript then that visitor will blame you for it not working.
    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="^$">

  14. #39
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brussels
    Posts
    377
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm getting quite worried about that amount... since the beginning of The Internet, already 2% of the users suffer JS disabilities ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Since CSS is to make stuff look pretty, I don't consider it necessary. Very nice, but not necessary. HTML is the body. CSS is clothing.[/ot]
    Since CSS was considered about clothing, 97% of porn websites suggest their visitors to disable CSS to get a better content.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Since CSS was considered about clothing, 97% of porn websites suggest their visitors to disable CSS to get a better content.
    Did you miss Naked CSS day? Show your <body>, baby (started by dustin diaz)

  16. #41
    SitePoint Enthusiast 3dy.ro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    You wouldn't say that if you were on a smartphone with a tiny data plan
    I'm on one, and Opera Mini lets me disable images, but not CSS.

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    the majority of my neighbors are paying $15/mo for 768kbps/384kbps... and let me tell you, they're none too happy with a lot of todays crappy bloated sites.
    But is this the CSS that bloats their sites? Or the fact that not many people minify their stylesheets, optimize their images, and even not minify JS and gzip?

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Madness? Madness is not using HTML properly -- if you code semantically using the HTML tags for *SHOCK* WHAT THEY ARE FOR you should have CSS off graceful degradation AUTOMATICALLY for no extra effort!!!
    True.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    D, all of the above.

    A lot of sites do nothing to speed up their sites, when there is a lot they can do. However, they should still make sure it works without JS.

  18. #43
    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 3dy.ro View Post
    But is this the CSS that bloats their sites? Or the fact that not many people minify their stylesheets, optimize their images, and even not minify JS and gzip?
    Often it's the stuff loaded BY the CSS -- like presentational images instead of content images, or more recently web fonts... Where embedding three webfonts pushes a 120k website up into the half-megabyte+ range.

    I'm waiting for Opera to introduce webfont blocking. You can do it through user CSS to not see them, but the files are still loaded by @font-face... Blocking @font-face could speed up page-loads on a lot of websites.

    While I agree failing to run gzip is just stupid in this day and age -- to me "minifying" and "white space stripping" is just half-assed idiocy used to obfuscate bloated/bad code. Maybe that's just because I'm used to seeing it practiced by people with 20:1 code to content ratios, but I truly believe if you have to minify your code, there's something WRONG with your code.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I minify my code and it's not bloated. =(

    I have my server do it automatically for me though to save all the space I can (I actually a some code that automatically uses the Google Closure API to minify it, then cache it on the server). I don't get a huge savings, but every bit counts. The big perk is I can have comments in the code and not worry about them, because they'll be removed from the code that is presented.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I'm waiting for Opera to introduce webfont blocking. You can do it through user CSS to not see them, but the files are still loaded by @font-face... Blocking @font-face could speed up page-loads on a lot of websites.
    I'm enjoying this fruit today through the wonders that is NoScript plugin : )

    Hello NoScript people, plz make a version for Opera kthx

  21. #46
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,869
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Hello NoScript people, plz make a version for Opera kthx
    No version of the noscript plugin is needed for Opera as that functionality is built into Opera itself.

    Simply right click on the status bar and select "Customize" then "Appearance". Then from the "Buttons" tab select "Preferences" and then drag the options you want to be able to easily enable and disable onto the status bar.

    Dragging the "Enable JavaScript" checkbox there gives the same result as the corresponding JavaScript button in the Noscript extension for Firefox.
    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="^$">

  22. #47
    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 felgall View Post
    No version of the noscript plugin is needed for Opera as that functionality is built into Opera itself.

    Simply right click on the status bar and select "Customize" then "Appearance". Then from the "Buttons" tab select "Preferences" and then drag the options you want to be able to easily enable and disable onto the status bar.
    Which does NOT include blocking the CSS property @font-face! You know, the topic she was replying to?

    Though I do find it interesting they're now adding CSS parsing to noscript too... which I think speaks volumes about these new 'features' when someone is willing to take the time to make third party extensions to block them!

  23. #48
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,283
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:

    Then from the "Buttons" tab select "Preferences" and then drag the options you want to be able to easily enable and disable onto the status bar.
    Drag the options? I can get to that panel with f12 but it's pure all JS on or all JS off. Firefox has the same worthlessness built in too, all on or off, and somewhere an actual WhiteList that I can edit if I feel like wasting time playing with my browser when I could be wasting it better on something like reddit.

    Here's my problem: if I go to, say, twitter, I only want to allow 3 of the 5 or 6 domains listed there. Right now the only way I've figured out to do that in Opera is to open the section under whitelisting and manually type each domain. Where do I get a list of domains who want to run scripts, and I can check them on/off and have that only last as long as Opera's session?

    I am too lazy to do that if I can get a "button" where, upon clicking, I get a list of each domain who wants to run scripts, and then I can choose to temporarily allow it (until end of browser session) or permanently (which I never, ever do... guess I'm not too lazy to allow the same three scripts on twitter every time I go there). Also clickjacking, iframes, and even WebGL can be blocked/unblocked. Even marquee tags get reduced in movement with NoScript (Oh pointy birds! has no marquee in my FF simply because I by default block scripts, even tho technically marquee isn't a script).

    Where in Opera can I see ALL the domains who want to run scripts? For every page I visit? And I don't want to permanently whitelist them. And then I want to be able to easily toggle them, not move them over to some other panel or copy them.


    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    Though I do find it interesting they're now adding CSS parsing to noscript too...
    They've had it for a long time... for clickjacking among other things. Those are often nothing more than CSS tricks.

    It also has dealing with #! urls built in as well... it will try to find a url that works if scripts are blocked, like google does.


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
  •