SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47
  1. #26
    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 webdev1958 View Post
    That's where we differ. I don't think it is logical to use html5 yet for the reasons I mentioned before.
    If EVER... Even if it were supported, it does so much to set coding practices BACK a decade, there is NO benefit to migrating to it.

    The only useful stuff in HTML 5 apart from ONE new form element all has NOTHING to do with markup (specifically CSS3 and the new JS stuff) -- which I suspect is why it's all been thrown under it's banner; without them the emperor has no clothes.

  2. #27
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    If EVER... Even if it were supported, it does so much to set coding practices BACK a decade, there is NO benefit to migrating to it.

    The only useful stuff in HTML 5 apart from ONE new form element all has NOTHING to do with markup (specifically CSS3 and the new JS stuff) -- which I suspect is why it's all been thrown under it's banner; without them the emperor has no clothes.
    ok fair enough.

    My views are based solely on commercial use and after it's finalised, or at least very close to finalised, I'll have a closer look at it. But unless there is some sort of "road to Damascus" type change/improvement in html5 over html4 between now and then, I doubt very much I'll be rushing to use html5 either. Basically: if it ain't broken, don't fix it

  3. #28
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,150
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart4 View Post
    So my solution is, if the website's visitors are going to be tech-savvy and modern, they are most most probably not going to have JS turned off.
    I wouldn't rely on that. In my experience, non-tech-savvy visitors are less likely to have JavaScript turned off, simply because they don't know how to do that.

  4. #29
    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 TechnoBear View Post
    I wouldn't rely on that. In my experience, non-tech-savvy visitors are less likely to have JavaScript turned off, simply because they don't know how to do that.
    Yeah, I was going to say that's backwards too...

  5. #30
    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)
    To get to the point. Yes, I don't know how I didn't realized about the un-suportivness of the HTML5 tags in older IE browsers versions. Thanks for reminding me that. So my solution is, if the website's visitors are going to be tech-savvy and modern, they are most most probably not going to have JS turned off. For that reason I would use a little JS help from modernizr to get my HTML5 tags working. However, if I develop a website for older and more inert people, and especially a website with tens of thousands of hits per day, I wouldn't risk and layout it with HTML5, in case someone does not have JS enables. So it all comes down to the stats. Who know if HTML5 will be finally implemented in 2020? Why don't we just start using it today, if it's logical to do so, like I stated above.
    That seems like an ok approach to me, It depends on the app / website. Many applications don't bother supporting non-js enabled browsers at all. You'll see more of that in the future. I've done a u-turn myself on this issue and the web is really moving towards making js a required feature. Like it or lump it.

    One thing I still can't quite get it is, how can you add a fixed padding (in this case 20px) if the DIV already has a relative width (in this case %)? I though that's not possible, so I used one wrapper with particular width in percentage, and then use an inner div just to set the fixed padding. Thanks for providing me an alternative solution.
    Yes, an inner div is the simplest way to work with px/% widths + padding or border because by default the total width of an element is the width + padding + border.
    There is a box-sizing property which will allow the padding & border not to add to the total width e.g.
    http://css-tricks.com/7323-box-sizing/
    Code css:
    #aside {
      -webkit-box-sizing: border-box; /* Safari/Chrome, other WebKit */
      -moz-box-sizing: border-box; /* Firefox, other Gecko */
      box-sizing: border-box; /* Opera/IE 8+ */
      padding: 20px;
      width: 25%
    }
    But, IE6/7 won't understand that yet, so until they are long gone I'm sticking with an inner div.

    Post #10 is really helpful. Thanks for that too! Are there any layout tutorials that I can really understand not just how, but why it is done as it is done? Matthewjamestaylor gives some really cool starter layouts, but doesn't give much explanation of what's going on. Any other, more modern, layout solutions like that out there? I plan to develop my own set of starter layouts, some with fixed sidebars and flexible main column, while some even 3 column-based. That will help me with fast prototyping when starting new projects.
    It's a great way to learn. I've learnt just from playing with examples and asking questions like you are in this forum.
    I also found the book 'Bulletproof web design' by Dan Cederholm an excellent beginner -> expert book.
    Paul also has some great examples and explanations of layout on his site: http://pmob.co.uk/

    All the best,

  6. #31
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Braveheart4 View Post
    ......Post #10 is really helpful. Thanks for that too! .........
    and is similar to the way I have been saying all along is the way it should be done, without having to use any elements from a currently half baked spec, namely html5......so it appears we are now in agreement on this

    Another point:

    Why put <!doctype html> on top of a document that doesn't use any html5 specific elements?

    It's a bit like someone putting just <h1>Hello World...!!!!</h1> inside a <body> and saying, "hey, look at my shiny new html5 code"

  7. #32
    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)
    Another point:
    Why put <!doctype html> on top of a document that doesn't use any html5 specific elements?
    It's easier to type and has no ill effect.

    The difference between you and me is that I just don't care about stuff that doesn't matter.

  8. #33
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    It's easier to type and has no ill effect.
    I don't bother typing the doc. type at all. It's already at the top of my xhtml Strict document template.




    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    The difference between you and me is that I just don't care about stuff that doesn't matter.
    That's where we actually agree because I don't care about html5 atm

  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 markbrown4 View Post
    It's easier to type and has no ill effect.
    Other than making validation pointless/meaningless given 5's structural rules that are so loose, a LA hooker looks like a nun by comparison.

  10. #35
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,150
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    That seems like an ok approach to me, It depends on the app / website. Many applications don't bother supporting non-js enabled browsers at all. You'll see more of that in the future. I've done a u-turn myself on this issue and the web is really moving towards making js a required feature. Like it or lump it.
    Those users who disable JavaScript do so for a reason, such as disability, or have no control over the issue if e.g. they are using a business computer and company policy prevents the use of JavaScript. When these folk (1-2% of your visitors) reach your site, they're not going to suddenly start employing JavaScript for your convenience - they're going to go to another site. On top of the 1-2% of potential customers you've just lost there, you risk losing their friends and relations, too. Not because they're going to say "Hey, example.com is a lousy site - it doesn't work without JavaScript", but because if they find your competitor's site useful and accessible, they will say, "I use competitor.com and I'd recommend it if you want such-and-such." Now, if you're happy sending all that business to your competitors, by all means continue with your "JavaScript required" approach, but if not, then I suggest you have a rethink.

    In the UK, it is a requirement that businesses provide equal access to services (not necessarily equal experience) for disabled people. I believe Australian law is similar. If your site is inaccessible to a disabled user, you could find yourself open to prosecution. In my experience, most disabled folk are too busy getting on with life to bother suing: they simply go elsewhere. But are you - or your clients - really prepared to take that risk?

  11. #36
    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've always firmly been in the camp of making everything gracefully degrade without js.
    such as disability
    I don't actually know if this is true for most people with a disability, There's plently of js out there written to increase accessibility.
    or have no control over the issue if e.g. they are using a business computer and company policy prevents the use of JavaScript
    I'm not sure this is very prominent either, if it still is an issue I think it will become less and less of one in the future.
    In the UK, it is a requirement that businesses provide equal access to services (not necessarily equal experience) for disabled people. I believe Australian law is similar. If your site is inaccessible to a disabled user, you could find yourself open to prosecution. In my experience, most disabled folk are too busy getting on with life to bother suing: they simply go elsewhere. But are you - or your clients - really prepared to take that risk?
    Yes, in Australia there are anti-discrimination laws. I guess I just need to understand the case that makes all people with a disability have to use sites without javascript. To me, they are completely separate issues.
    When these folk (1-2% of your visitors) reach your site, they're not going to suddenly start employing JavaScript for your convenience - they're going to go to another site. On top of the 1-2% of potential customers you've just lost there, you risk losing their friends and relations, too. Not because they're going to say "Hey, example.com is a lousy site - it doesn't work without JavaScript", but because if they find your competitor's site useful and accessible, they will say, "I use competitor.com and I'd recommend it if you want such-and-such." Now, if you're happy sending all that business to your competitors, by all means continue with your "JavaScript required" approach, but if not, then I suggest you have a rethink.
    Now you're talking about business value. For me and the types of applications I write it's making less and less business sense to continue to support non-js enabled browsers. js makes some things far easier to build, a better experience for the users and happier clients. That sounds like a good sense in business to me.

  12. #37
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    Now you're talking about business value. For me and the types of applications I write it's making less and less business sense to continue to support non-js enabled browsers. js makes some things far easier to build, a better experience for the users and happier clients. That sounds like a good sense in business to me.
    obviously then, your clients are different to mine.

    I haven't had a client yet who was happy to lose any potential visitors/shoppers, with or without javascript, to their website.

  13. #38
    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)
    There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
    All I can do is suggest you follow some industry leaders and Get Real about solving problems that matter.
    @paul_irish @brucel @nimbuin @keithclarkcouk @thecssninja @leaverou
    http://gettingreal.37signals.com/
    http://24ways.org/

  14. #39
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    you're entitled to your opinion, so we can agree to disagree

  15. #40
    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 don't agree to that.

  16. #41
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    no fixed address
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    I don't agree to that.
    That's totally your choice to make . But if you choose to not agree to disagree, then you are in fact agreeing with me

  17. #42
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,150
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    I've always firmly been in the camp of making everything gracefully degrade without js.
    Ah, OK. Your earlier remark
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    Many applications don't bother supporting non-js enabled browsers at all. You'll see more of that in the future. I've done a u-turn myself on this issue and the web is really moving towards making js a required feature. Like it or lump it.
    seemed to suggest otherwise. I apologise if I've misunderstood.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    There's plently of js out there written to increase accessibility.
    I'd be interested to see some examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    I guess I just need to understand the case that makes all people with a disability have to use sites without javascript.
    That is not even close to what I said. I said that some people who have JavaScript disabled do so because of a disability.

  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 TechnoBear View Post
    I said that some people who have JavaScript disabled do so because of a disability.
    While others simply do it because a lot of what designers do with javascript just pisses users off. Again, see the "Noscript" plugin for FF and the per page options in Opera.

  19. #44
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,798
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    As have been mentioned, HTML5 is an "evolving spec", this means even when officially "released" the powers that be reserve the right to change their minds. . A sad development in developing standards for developers. This requires a new way of thinking when deciding when to implement it's use.

    Like DS60 pointed out, some of the mark up in HTML seems unnecessarily bloated ( I add to that sentiment, especially when you consider that HTML5 was meant to be used along side CSS3 which allows multiple background images). Oh and I saw this in a would -be client's code: <div class="NavWrap"><div id="mainNav"><na><ul> ...FTW,DS60!!!


    HOWEVER HTML5 is not intrinsically evil. You just cant go at it full hog yet. In some cases it actually does save bloat...

    Block links , for example: <a><p>some thing in a paragraph </p><p>another paragraph in the same ground all which you want linked</p></a>. There are probably more useful examples of that implementation, but still quite clever. The thing is to pick and choose correctly.

  20. #45
    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)
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Ah, OK. Your earlier remarkseemed to suggest otherwise. I apologise if I've misunderstood.
    I used to be in that camp that made sure everything worked completely with or without js, now it really depends on the use case.
    I'd be interested to see some examples.
    The most obvious is enabling better keyboard support for navigation.
    http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-...accessibility/
    Captioning
    http://www.sitepoint.com/art-science-javascript/
    Text-size switchers
    And more..
    http://www.slideshare.net/cheilmann/...h-presentation
    That is not even close to what I said. I said that some people who have JavaScript disabled do so because of a disability.
    I realise that, I'm just interested what it is in particular that makes those users disable js.

  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 markbrown4 View Post
    The most obvious is enabling better keyboard support for navigation.
    http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-...accessibility/
    Which is funny since for keyboard users it would be more useful to turn the script off, and have the script written so that the methods are attached by the script... scripting off, you get the expanded version... I'd probably copy the h2's textnode into a createElement('a') so the markup isn't wasting time on code not everyone needs.. or append an anchor for the open/close element... Oh wait, that's EXACTLY what I did on my accordion script.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    I'm not getting why that even needs javascript...

    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    Text-size switchers
    TOTAL waste of code on damned near every site that does it since browsers have zoom and you can use %/em to give users auto-sizing. One of the dumbest things you'll see on websites and usually an indicator the coder has no clue what they are doing. Ranks right up there with "bookmark me" links or scripted tooltips on EVERYTHING.

    Which is why on most sites that do that I end up sending * { font-size:100% !important; line-height:140% !important; } via user.css -- increasingly common on sites with useless font sizes like say.. these very forums.

    There is some sense to what you're saying though -- javascript can be used to ENHANCE the user experience... like anything else it's just when it's abused/misused that it's a royal PITA, which is why people start disabling it. Stupid animations, hundreds of K of javascript to do a couple k of CSS' job, etc, etc... See how 90% of what jquery does is stuff I wouldn't put on a website in the first place, and the remaining 10% just makes scripting cryptic for no good reason. (because C dialect languages aren't cryptic enough to start with)

    Unless you're doing something that can ONLY be done in javascript -- like a game, or an ACTUAL application like google maps -- Javascript should be restricted to enhancing functionality, not supplanting it. It often feels to me like an overwhelming number of websites bloated down with several hundred K of javascript seem to be doing it for nothing that couldn't be done faster/easier without the scripting in the first place.

    Now look at them yo-yo's, that's not how you do it
    You code your pages in ASP
    That ain't working, that's not how you do it
    JS for nothing and your scripts for free.


    Though you're asking why some people block scripts? Go visit one of those websites that has that STUPID ANNOYING "turn random words into popup links to advertisements" scripts. See websites that appear to load normally, but then do a popup when you go to click on the first link... Scripting can be so annoying that many people would rather lose any "enhancements" than deal with the BS.

  22. #47
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,150
    Mentioned
    262 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    The most obvious is enabling better keyboard support for navigation.
    http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-...accessibility/
    Captioning
    http://www.sitepoint.com/art-science-javascript/
    Text-size switchers
    And more..
    http://www.slideshare.net/cheilmann/...h-presentation
    I'm still not convinced. On the first one, I'm with DS60 - much better to have the menu visible and have the JavaScript - if enabled - hide it. As per post #35, I'll go elsewhere if I can't navigate a site without JavaScript. The second one, I think I may be missing the point. I accept that JavaScript can be written in an accessible way, but I'm not quite sure how this example fits with "increasing accessibility". The third link really fails to convince me - not least because it doesn't work without JavaScript enabled, and there's no fall-back content. Yes, I did try to be fair and enable JavaScript just to see what I was missing. The answer seems to be a series of slides, each with one sentence, where I'm required to click the mouse or use the arrow key 125 times to work my way through a presentation that would have been much easier to access in plain HTML/CSS. Admittedly, I gave up after the first 15, so maybe I missed the good stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4 View Post
    I'm just interested what it is in particular that makes those users disable js.
    Well, for pretty much the same reasons DS60 gives for the rest of the population.
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    While others simply do it because a lot of what designers do with javascript just pisses users off.
    There is a current trend that says every site must have a slide-show or other animation, however useless. If you want to be really cool, you have several. And possibly a series of animated advertisements, too. And because your wonderful effects are so awesome, naturally you don't want any visitor turning them off, so you don't bother providing any mechanism for that, despite accessibility guidelines1. Which leaves folk with some visual, perceptual or neurological problems no option but to defend themselves by disabling JavaScript altogether.

    There are other examples, but that's the problem - not necessarily JavaScript itself, but the way it's implemented.

    (1)7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]


Tags for this Thread

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
  •