SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 78
  1. #51
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,732
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's much akin to how Opera feels slow to some people despite actually finishing loading the page faster... This illusion occurs because Opera doesn't redraw the window arbitrarily after every piece of information, but instead waits for certain things to finish (DOM complete, all CSS) or for a timer to expire (Tools -> preferences -> advanced -> browsing, under "loading" there's a SELECT, typically set to 'every one second') before attempting a reflow/redraw... so while it's physically faster, the lack of showing you it's doing anything makes it feel like it takes longer. (this was more true when Opera's default for that was every three seconds!). It's funny in that case because if you set Opera to a high 'redraw' delay like every 5 seconds, the page loads significantly faster, but it feels like it takes forever because you don't actually see it doing anything.

    Perception is everything.
    Great point as usual, DS60. This was the same principle behind pre loaders, back in the flash days. The fact that you already saw "something" on screen makes it "feel" like you are waiting less . even though the wait was the same + the time it took to lad the preloader itself. Always thought that was an interesting UI phenomenon.

    There is another good thing about scripts at the end; they make DOM manipulation easier, especially with straight js. By this I mean simply that it "eliminates"(note the am using this word loosely!!) the need for <body onload="...">.

  2. #52
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, Mallory, an year old article and an outburst that doesn't make any sense dismisses any logical or technical argument. Because your whole last post is pretty much off the rails.

    I'm not blaming the user, I'm blaming the developer that utters exaggerated and false judgements. Going around a cat and pretending you see a tiger it's an illusion just for your benefit.

    Sadly, low speed internet bunch will never grow small in numbers. After Alabama it comes Africa. And so on. Pretending endlessly that this bunch is your base target public is unrealistic.

    Again, it's 100kB. Once. In cache. Argue that, don't argue tabloid news.

    To be clear, the tunnels I refer to are the things one uses to get underneath a suspended road or through a mountain foot. Satellite coverage inside them is poor. Underneath a tree there is no reason for you to have a really bad satellite reception. Unless you're modern age Jules Verne novel character.

  3. #53
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    5,332
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    We don't have any tunnels - or even that many trees - but we do have hills. Guess what? Mobile coverage is lousy. There are only two networks with any cover in this area, and the better of them says
    On a 3G phone You can expect to be able to use email and internet on your 3G phone, indoors and outdoors. However, speeds for downloading files and watching videos online will be slower than you might like.
    Using a laptop or tablet here to access the internet will be slow and isn’t recommended.
    So I use a phone for (very slow) internet access when I'm not in the house. There are no WiFi hot spots here. Come to that, there are no town halls or malls, either. It doesn't matter how smart your phone is, the coverage is equally bad for everyone.

  4. #54
    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)
    Regarding Mobile I would only be able to get weak EDGE and that is dire apart from having to pay for amount downloaded and 40kbps bits not bytes average would be on better days and the area around me has plenty of masts and no obstruction. So by default I made sure JS was disabled.

  5. #55
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mobile coverage is all you've got for internet access? I was in this spot (extremely lousy and mobile only internet access) back in 2002.

    Where I live is just a small town and yet we have several free hot spots provided by the town hall and an electronics store. We have up to 20mbp unlimited internet connections from landlines for as high as 20$ a month (give or take).

    Edge is pretty much the norm here too, but there are a few good spots for 3G also.


    And plenty of hills. In fact, going out on the European Road a few kilometers north and you can see the Carpathian Mountains' Arc in the distance.


    But back when I had that lousy mobile only connection, I prospected the market for a satellite option and I even nearly get it, except landlines moved faster. And I learned it from another previously tormented soul, which, like me, didn't had the right info, but eventually learned that lousy connection was because of the lack of proper planning from our part. Whining didn't get us higher download speed.

  6. #56
    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 itmitică View Post
    Where I live
    ... and there's exactly what's "wrong" with saying things like "It's only 100k once". Sure, where you live.. Not actually an issue for me either.. at home.

    I travel 50 miles north where 33.6 dialup is a good day, go to Panera bread where you have 15 to 20 people sharing a 768kbs DSL line...

    I mean, at that point it's the same attitude you get when it comes to making a new landfill or prison. NIMBY.

    ... and really what our stupid dutch kitty was referring to is the "statistical defense" -- yet another of those lame excuses for not being a web professional... people on narrow bandwidth pipes are only a small group, Opera users are only a small group, people browsing with javascript disabled is only a small group... until you have so many small groups of people that "don't matter" or "aren't my target audience" -- that you've eliminated everybody.

    The types of fat bloated non-graceful degrading scripting produced using jquery falling squarely into the 'let's alienate users on purpose" all for some stupid useless animations, circumventing being told not to use TARGET or worse, AJAX as framesets" and all sorts of other crap that doesn't even belong on websites in the first place if you care at all about users actually *SHOCK* visiting the site and having it be useful to them. No shock the statistics defense, target audience defense, band wagon, card stacking, and a whole host of other lame excuses and classic propaganda techniques are the best that can be come up with to justify flushing their own work down the toilet.

    Not that I'm one to talk using plain folks, name-calling and transfer... beats the tar out of glittering generalities, card stacking and bandwagon.

  7. #57
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you got it just once it will last you for a life time. Well, not that long, but you know what I mean. Is just once. No matter at what speed. Just once. No matter from where. Just once.

    Did I mention is just once? For hundreds and hundreds of sites? Let's make the math: one jQuery once for a site and hundreds of tiny small scripts that rely on that single jQuery file got once, from hundreds and hundreds of sites, each much much smaller than it's usually the case when they have no common backbone, versus hundreds and hundreds of "moderate" size custom scripts all having nothing in common, all reinventing the wheel by them self, all going against the user's bandwidth.

    I'd say it's bad economy not to use jQuery, when you have a free library from a free CDN to cache it for free. Once. For hundreds and hundreds of different sites.

    Lousy scripting produced using jQuery is not jQuery being lousy. And without jQuery, lousy would still be lousy.

    jQuery makes the difference in many areas, yet it cannot take control over the developers. That's asking too much and that's a wrong reason for point fingers at jQuery. It's like saying XHTML is crap because people don't know how to use it properly.

  8. #58
    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 itmitică View Post
    If you got it just once it will last you for a life time. Well, not that long, but you know what I mean. Is just once. No matter at what speed. Just once. No matter from where. Just once.
    Per visit... assuming you don't blow out the cache with content.

    As to:
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Lousy scripting produced using jQuery is not jQuery being lousy
    I've never seen anything worthwhile done with it that couldn't have been better done, often with LESS effort and been easier to maintain without it!

    It is reliance upon a massive userland function library in an interpreted language... in other words everything programmers have been told NOT to do in interpreted languages since the days of LISP circa 19-fracking-58.

    It's like the Dartmouth BASIC programs people wrote that used 16k of prepared gosubs from line 10K up, then had the balls to call professional grade code and sell to businesses. It was bad practice then, it's bad practice today. About the only thing that's changed is not making every other line a comment so you could charge for more k-loc's.

  9. #59
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I've never seen anything worthwhile done with it that couldn't have been better done, often with LESS effort and been easier to maintain without it!
    It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You are probably half right even. That doesn't take anything away from jQuery. At least not in my eyes.

  10. #60
    <title class="lol"> bronze trophy TehYoyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northeast Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    It's your opinion and you're entitled to it. You are probably half right even. That doesn't take anything away from jQuery. At least not in my eyes.
    Which is why we all have our own opinions.

    ~TehYoyo

  11. #61
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It better be so.

  12. #62
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Jeff Mott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,149
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Which is why we all have our own opinions.
    Absolutely. I only wish that people wouldn't distort the facts in an effort to justify their opinion, such as by claiming that you end up writing more code with jQuery than without, which is blatantly false. And I wish people didn't unfairly apply blame, such as by blaming jQuery for poor page design, which is silly. And I wish people didn't exaggerate jQuery's k-weight, as if it would destroy a page's performance, when in fact its size is comparable to a single, medium-sized image.

    To quote a cliche: "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts."

  13. #63
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,047
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    This all comes back to the internet being privilege not a necessity – pure and simple. People still use mail, libraries exist, television exists, radio, etc. These are all valid alternatives to the web. Maybe not as convenient but that is life. it is unfortunate everyone can't have the same things but that is the way it is… I don't see a 100K car parked in my drive way but I can get around just fine with what I have. I'm not telling ferrari though they should make their products accessible to the average, middle class income now am I? That isn't to say I think we should *try* to do what we can but there is a point where it just gets ridiculous. Especially for those people paying. What are they paying more money for if they can have same exact experience on a crappy device? So from a business standpoint it does make a lot of sense to promote better technology to make more money. It is sad… but that is the way the world works – it is all about the dollar. This is especially true for mobile… which most people think are toys anyway. Is a *toy* not a privilege?

    None the less, I agree that jQuery has spawned a race of script kiddies who have no idea what they are doing. I mean just look at all the stupid questions about "jQuery" and not "JavaScript" in the forums here. It is really ridiculous. Had anyone who asked most of these questions to actually learn some programming or even just JavaScript they wouldn't be knee deep in problems. It is frustrating but I still think it is a great tool. I can't even stand to be around that forum due to the amount of stupid questions about "jQuery" or simple configuration… give me a f**kin break. When I hear words like "just use a jQuery" I wish the could punch the person in a face. It is those types of people who put forth the false impression it has.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  14. #64
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    This all comes back to the internet being privilege not a necessity – pure and simple.
    Like electricity and indoor plumbing. Yes, sh*tting indoors is a "privilege". It's still something I consider a necessity in my daily life as a non-third-worlder, and no it's not on the same level as having a morning bagel.

    It used to be amazing that you could email your representative in a democracy. Now, in many places, that's the sole contact method. A poor decision on the gov't part, understandable in the light of budget cuts, but it leaves people out. Which is totally fine if you live in a dictatorship, but not fine in a democracy.
    It used to be amazing that you could vote via internet. While I doubt they will ever fix security enough to actually be safe, I expect governments to plough on to internet-only voting at some point (kinda like they forced us to use this OV-Chipcard over here in the Netherlands despite students hacking it easily, as it was made by, of course, the cheapest bidder. Then they spend the same amount of money they spent the first time developing the thing to fix the original problem, and told students sternly not to hack it, which they still did. Joy).
    It's becoming a necessity... very very slowly.

    Again, the internet isn't just Spacebook and games. Physical buildings and real staff cost money and the internet is increasingly seen as a solution to budget problems, for banks, libraries (the UK seems to be having a fun time trying to close them all), governments and others (Britannica isn't printing their World Encyclopedias anymore, though they did say "Wikipedia and the internet have nothing to do with this decision" lawlz).

    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    I'm not telling ferrari though they should make their products accessible to the average, middle class income now am I?
    Lukcily there are Ford Fiestas that do the same thing. The argument isn't about fibre optics here, it's about access, and sometimes that access is poor or nonexistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by oddz
    This is especially true for mobile… which most people think are toys anyway.
    The teenager surely does see it as a "necessary" toy. The business man, however, sees it exactly as a real necessity and never a toy.

    Of course, I'm one of the few who's more than willing to pay more taxes so that infrastructure for physical buildings, telephone lines and personnel remain, so that internet is just a "nice extra", but I am not seeing others so willing to keep paying, and I am watching libraries close and banks consolidate to larger cities only. How does grandma get to the bank that's 30km away? Does she need a Ferrari? No, but a Ford Fiesta at least. And a driver's license. Or an internet connection at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    So, Mallory, an year old article and an outburst that doesn't make any sense dismisses any logical or technical argument. Because your whole last post is pretty much off the rails.
    Most of my posts are pretty much off the rails. I don't do Ruby anyways.

    A year old makes it untrue, huh? Hahaha.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    I'm not blaming the user, I'm blaming the developer that utters exaggerated and false judgements. Going around a cat and pretending you see a tiger it's an illusion just for your benefit.

    Sadly, low speed internet bunch will never grow small in numbers. After Alabama it comes Africa. And so on. Pretending endlessly that this bunch is your base target public is unrealistic.
    Not blaming the user yet your claims of how easy it is for you in your area to get either a decent phone (it's the same here, most people in the Netherlands who have phones seem to have fairly new ones) or a decent connection (again, same here due to our high population and small land area) show you expect users who want normal internet access should easily be able to do so. I argue that this is NOT the case.

    Yes, after Alabama comes Africa. Now if I'm building something for mobiles that's in Dutch, it's very very very likely that it is only intended for Dutch audiences and that site will be built based on assumptions coming from local statistics, and they will not show many feature phones.

    If I'm building anything else, however, any of the regular sites that expect users from anywhere, or especially a business site meant to reach outside the country, as a developer I would be silly to make the same assumptions. These people don't need to be the base. They only need to be potential customers/clients/users. We're not selling Ferraris here, where we only want the richest to bother visiting (unless we are, and offering Mass Effect 3 for mobile).
    It's the same reason why you build accessibly, when if you want numbers, the % are very low. A reason then not to build accessibly, because one Hypothetical Blind Guy can't compete with 99% white middle-class sighted soccer moms.

    But it seems no matter how many stories of crappy internet around the world there are, developers still build as if everyone's got the same setup as they do: ginormous screens, newest hardware and software, and b*tchin' internet speeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Again, it's 100kB. Once. In cache. Argue that, don't argue tabloid news.
    Good to hear you think so highly of the New York Times. That a CDN can be cached is a good argument, because it does reduce future possible downloads. It still doesn't clear the developer from his/her responsibility to carefully consider his/her use of Javascript libraries or large anythings on a site that intends to include a mobile audience. (and if I were to have a library for mobile, it'd be either jQuip, or xui, or jqtouch, or sencha, or zepto... something written with these crappy CPUs/batteries/internets explicitly in mind... again, you could use something like matchMedia to have the user download a larger library if necessary if you want desktops-like devices to do More Stuff.)

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    To be clear, the tunnels I refer to are the things one uses to get underneath a suspended road or through a mountain foot. Satellite coverage inside them is poor. Underneath a tree there is no reason for you to have a really bad satellite reception. Unless you're modern age Jules Verne novel character.
    This is where I have a problem, and it really has nothing to do with jQuery. This is where you claim these people don't exist, or it's their fault, or they exist but they don't matter. You've even ignored people living in other countries in this very thread explaining how crappy reception can be yet pretend they don't exist, or can be counted on one hand. When I lived in the States, "holes" were pretty common, ordinary things. Unless those areas got more towers (which people b*tch about when someone wants to place near their home which I don't entirely understand, usually the phone company will pay you a monthly "fee" for the ability to have a tower on your land! and now you get real reception... maybe it's all the child cancer the internets claim they cause), those holes still exist. Quit saying "because I can easily get satellite reception, everyone else claiming otherwise is lying living in a Jules Verne novel". That's insulting.

  15. #65
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mallory,
    You have a big heart and you show it.

    But your arguments are good if you were PETA. ( Are you? I'd love to see your protesting some time! )

    jQuery isn't that much big of a deal that you'd need satellite reception. And it's not a big deal at all, resource wise. But if it helps you point out to less fortunate, that's fine by me.


    You just need to remember it's a business you need to take care of, not a charity. Usually, you work for what pays off. Users with extremely lousy devices aren't a target. They'll use those mostly for voice plans.

    If jQuery is out of the cards, that means JavaScript is out of the cards. And if JavaScript is out of the cards, the developer will get a memo about that.


    Let's run a few examples.

    Mobile is often for weather: I can't really imagine you can do much w/o JavaScript, including AJAX here. Static content is unprofessional here.

    Mobile is often for news: The same here, w/o JavaScript you actually make it harder for the user, and w/o AJAX you're wasting its bandwidth like you're burning candles.

    Mobile is often for directions: Good luck using Google Maps or any maps w/o JavaScript. (I'm sure no one needs Google Maps to find the crapper outside, do they?)

    Mobile is for social media: Good luck being swift and dandy on facebook, twitter, google+ w/o JavaScript. (And grandma should avoid posting on those, she may not get her next job because of the compromising content she may put there.)

    And so on.


    And for all of the above, jQuery makes it easier to implement.

  16. #66
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, as usual, I support jQuery because I do think it can be a time and space saver in many places.

    However, as Stomme and DS said (paraphrasing a lot =p): if you don't need it, don't use it.

    Just so you know, mobile browser caches work a lot differently from desktop ones. Desktop caches can generally handle quite a few megabytes of data.

    This article has some good info on it: http://www.blaze.io/mobile/understan...e-cache-sizes/

    If you notice, the Android platforms only have 8MB of cache. It's very very easy to blow through 8MB of cache. After that, it has to be redownloaded again. And that's on the latest models. Older phones have even smaller caches.

    So, if you are visit probably 10 sites a day, it's likely jQuery would get wiped from your cache each day and you'd have to redownload it.

  17. #67
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, I agree Jason made a good point.

    Mallory has some good points also.

    The truth, like always, is somewhere in the middle. Just a little bit more in our middle, those on the jQuery side.

  18. #68
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Mallory,
    You have a big heart and you show it.
    =^.^=

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    But your arguments are good if you were PETA. ( Are you? I'd love to see your protesting some time! )
    But I hate PETA. I like animals to not be tortured before I eat them (and so avoid buying bio-industry meat if I can), but PETA's insane. Or was that the point? :)

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    jQuery isn't that much big of a deal that you'd need satellite reception. And it's not a big deal at all, resource wise. But if it helps you point out to less fortunate, that's fine by me.
    Even you mentioned jQueryMobile. If I were to include a JS library for a mobile audience I'd still think twice before doing it, and then still one built with mobiles in mind. Especially if jQuip is correct and most developers only use 13% of the whole of jQuery, why ask people to load it? Especially when they are likely paying for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    You just need to remember it's a business you need to take care of, not a charity. Usually, you work for what pays off. Users with extremely lousy devices aren't a target. They'll use those mostly for voice plans.
    Same argument goes for accessibility (they are almost never the target base, and they are a low percentage of (potential) users/customers..). Which, recently Mike Paciello made an interesting post about it: http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/20...ility-anyways/ <-- this is specifically about business decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    If jQuery is out of the cards, that means JavaScript is out of the cards. And if JavaScript is out of the cards, the developer will get a memo about that.
    Wait, you do know jQuery != JavaScript. There's a difference between loading a library and loading a few lines of JS. If all you are writing for mobiles is a few lines of JS, save the library for the users you're giving the hated-by-DS animations etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Let's run a few examples.

    Mobile is often for weather: I can't really imagine you can do much w/o JavaScript, including AJAX here. Static content is unprofessional here.
    And (static content) wouldn't give the user what they came for. Though weer.nl only updates the report a few times a day... they use JS for the Flash of the Doppler map I think but the report for the day is uploaded 3 or 4 times during a day, statically.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Mobile is often for news: The same here, w/o JavaScript you actually make it harder for the user, and w/o AJAX you're wasting its bandwidth like you're burning candles.
    I'm not sure why AJAX is necessary for the morning news. I read news sites without JS. They can only be as up to date as the reporter sending in reports.

    Now stuff like news tweets, yes. Or, if you don't have AJAX with the server push/long polling/comet-y stuff they tend to do, you don't get a notice that there is a new tweet/message. So far, that being an option has been fine. If I don't have scripts, I get whatever was on the server at the time of my request, but I get no notifications of new messages. If I have scripts on, I get notifications. They'll either pop up the message directly, or allow me to click the notification to get the message (means the server only has to send when I ask, might save them bandwidth).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Mobile is often for directions: Good luck using Google Maps or any maps w/o JavaScript. (I'm sure no one needs Google Maps to find the crapper outside, do they?)
    Yup, this one pretty much needs scripts, and preferably also GeoLocation. Of which we get to choose two versions: real geoloc (GPS), or loose triagulation from the nearest cell towers. The former can be precise up to a meter (or maybe better) but is slower to load to the user and uses up more of their CPU and battery. The latter is less precise (fine for general locations, not good for showing how close you are to the restaurant) but loads quicker and uses less energy from the phone.
    Both need JS.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Mobile is for social media: Good luck being swift and dandy on facebook, twitter, google+ w/o JavaScript. (And grandma should avoid posting on those, she may not get her next job because of the compromising content she may put there.)
    Same as reply above regarding tweets... this goes for any of the other social thingies like Spacebook.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    And for all of the above, jQuery makes it easier to implement.
    Again it depends on what you need and who you're building for. For our "mobile" version of our insurance site, everything could work without JS, but we had some JS for little things like auto-filling-in street name and city name if you typed in the postal code, or pre-filling vehicle information if you typed in a license plate number.
    For what we would want more JS available for, such as actually reporting damage for a claim, we weren't (at the time) legally allowed to do this (we would have the user take photos with their phone of the damage, fill in another form and get the signatures of the claimant and whoever else was involved) as the law still demanded signatures on paper. A library might have made developing such a system easier and also worth it, but the site functioned without a library (yeah, personal functions made up a "library" but it wasn't any of the big names I mean) and it was the type of site that *should*.

    Quote Originally Posted by samanime
    So, if you are visit probably 10 sites a day, it's likely jQuery would get wiped from your cache each day and you'd have to redownload it.
    Also some sites auto-update their versions (if there's a new jQuery, they update the library url to reflect that) so the first time the user runs into a site with the newer one, that's also a download. This was one reason why, when I used jQuery on our home-rental site, I just kept the version I wrote for and linked to the static url to jQuery's servers. The other reason was, who knew if an upgrade broke something. We were using the UI stuff which isn't core.

  19. #69
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, PETA, in its craziness, can protest in beautiful ways. The point.


    I might have a slightly different view on accessibility, which you may not like. HTML5 brings a better granularity to markup. That means mandatory accessibility, but not for the developer, for the UAs. So far developers had to jump through hoops. Let UAs develop better code for mandatory and let developers worry about semantics.


    jQuery being partly used is not faulty design. I would have to also consider faulty design dynamic web pages. The whole backend. I would have to consider Wordpad faulty over Notepad. I would have to consider WinWord faulty over Wordpad. So many features and only 15% to 60% used.

    The problem I see since a long time is that some expect web world to stand aside from the whole I.T. history of development. It can't. It won't reinvent anything. It hasn't. The system of reference is the same: data transfer, code repositories, code dependencies, reusable libraries. "A few lines" are more expensive each time one denies that.

    Finally, a fragmentation will occur with any dynamic piece of software. That's something developers have to worry about: keeping up to date. You're already doing that with your OS, with your browser, with anything you care to use, because it enhances security, it brings new features to the tables, it enhances performance. Why jQuery is to get a different treatment?

  20. #70
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Finally, a fragmentation will occur with any dynamic piece of software. That's something developers have to worry about: keeping up to date. You're already doing that with your OS, with your browser, with anything you care to use, because it enhances security, it brings new features to the tables, it enhances performance. Why jQuery is to get a different treatment?
    For the same reason you don't auto-update PHP or Apache/nginx on your server: it can break stuff. (If you do you are an utter fool). You always want to test out stuff and what not.

    Also, in business environments you don't keep your Windows and browsers up-to-date. You usually lock the versions down, and then do regular maintenance where you upgrade manually only after making sure it won't break anything.

  21. #71
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You quote me saying "developers need to worry about keeping up to date", which is perfectly logical and sane, yet to manage to slip an "you are an utter fool" in relation with an "auto-update" I never spoke of.

    I'd say that's going a little out of your way, wouldn't you?

  22. #72
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,233
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitica
    So far developers had to jump through hoops. Let UAs develop better code for mandatory and let developers worry about semantics.
    That would be great.

  23. #73
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,047
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    I don't understand why more blame is put on the developer than the hardware. Fact of the matter is desktop websites came far before mobile websites. If the intention of the hardware was to be able to deliver the same experience than all devices fail and are out far beyond their time. Why? – because it is all about that mighty dollar. Though in reality mobile phones on average have not been powerful enough to deliver the same experience. Yet no one blames the hardware but the sites that were created before the hardware that existed. It is those phone manufacturers shoveling out sh*t that is not acceptable not developers imo. If the web can't work the way it does on a desktop than it shouldn't even be an option but it is because again – all about that mighty dollar. All websites should just work or the web shouldn't be an option. Having multiple versions to support different cases is chaos. hell… a seemingly small library like jQuery can't be used on a device – c'mon – do really think the phone manufacturer gave a flying f**k if any website rendered on the phone at all? We talk about all these older phones when reality is the people who built them obviously didn't give a f**k. It is on them not use. I mean… don't you think that the first mobile phone to ever be available should have provided the same type of experience as a desktop browsers in terms of websites. Instead they were/are total crap… why should we have to pay for others incompetence/desire to make the dollar with sub-par products.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  24. #74
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @itmitică: Sorry, I didn't mean the utter fool thing at you directly. I meant it towards any IT departments and developers which may have it auto-updating (since they're probably out there). =p

    However, I do stand by my saying that you shouldn't always worry about staying up to date.

    Usually with projects, I will start new ones at the latest stable version of the time. However, when I new version of PHP or jQuery comes out, if it's going to require substantial changes, I don't upgrade that version of PHP or jQuery and leave the program where it is. If it's a project important enough that it's lifespan is going to be many many years, I usually develop it taking care to feature proof it for the conceivable future.

    This is true of any platform or language.

  25. #75
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You should stand by your saying, it's true, regarding the extra test period any software product needs. Even for 0day security patches, a few well known vendor blunders advise us so.


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
  •