|
|
Posted by Michael Fesser on 12/19/07 23:10
..oO(Onideus Mad Hatter)
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:21:17 +0100, Michael Fesser <netizen@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Just for fun (I know, don't feed the trolls) ...
>
>Masochist much?
No. I just have to play a bit with the toys in my killfile every now and
then. You know, it's like these tamagotchi thingies - from time to time
they need some love and food. Not that I would care too much actually.
>>>>So what would be good enough reason to shut the door from users who
>>>>have a browser with no suppoer for javascript or javascript disabled?
>>>>Anyone?
>
>>>...the fact that such a browser doesn't exist.
>
>>Wrong, as usual.
>
>Then let's see you list them! And no, Lynx doesn't count. Oh, I'm
>sorry, was that going to be your ONLY example? LOL
Nope.
>>>Trying to surf the Internet with Lynx
>>>would be like trying to surf the Internet with a Commodore 64.
>
>>Nope, it's like surfing from the POV of a search engine.
>
>Nope, nope, nope...sorry dumbfuck, but pretty much ALL modern search
>engines have the capability to parse pages with javascript in them,
They might be able to parse or regex some URLs out of a script, but they
don't execute it.
>hell they can even spider text content in Flash files fer fuck sake.
_If_ the text is actually stored as text in the Flash and not only as
some vector objects.
>Well, I'm sure *YOU* can't, that deficiency however is not shared
>amongst the rest of us who aren't total fucking morons. Every "with
>it" web developer keeps track of user activity and stats on their
>server which are easily accesible at any time.
So do I, but I focus on the things that are really important and can be
measured _reliably_. For anything else rolling a dice would be easier
and less time-consuming.
>And if you look at ANY
>sites stats you will likely NEVER find figures above 10% as far as
>having javascript disabled:
>http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
The first three sentences of the JS section are quite interesting.
Anyway, here's another statistic. It's German, but it's as accurate as
the one above.
http://www.darw.de/statistik/statistik-js.php
>On my sites and most of the sites of my personal colleugues we never
>see javascript disabled on greater than 2% of visitors...
And I don't have to care at all - my sites also work without JS. This
separates the competent web authors from the little scripting wannabees.
>>Actually, providing accessible and usable websites is for people who
>>have something to say. So don't worry, it's not an issue for you, kiddy.
>
>This coming from a dumbfuck whose raping the W3C up the ass for
>directions. You're the kind of college flunkie level dipshit who
>thinks if he can get his sites to pass W3C validation that, that will
>somehow equate to the greatest level of cross compatibility (read
>accessiblity).
Wrong again, honey.
>For morons like you, you often sacrifice design for the sake of what
>you claim is accessibility. What you're too fuckin stupid to
>comprehend though is that design itself directly affects accessibility
>in the fact that if the design isn't any good...who the fuck is gonna
>want to even look at your site? Yes, by making it glitzy and "cool"
>looking you might lose three or four Amish dipshits like yourself, but
>you'll GAIN THOUSANDS of people who LIKE that kind of design. Where
>as if you catered to morons like yourself and presented all your sites
>as plain black text on a white background...yeah...other than those
>three or four retards...ain't NOBODY gonna bother visiting yer sites
>for longer than it takes to start hammerin that back button.
It's quite amazing how many lines of text you need in order to say
absolutely nothing. Other trolls are more efficient.
>>Such browsers
>
>What the fuck do you mean "browsers"? There is no plural here,
There is. Lynx is not the only one.
>Dipshit. There's ONLY ONE and its makers stopped development OVER A
>FUCKING DECADE AGO.
Wrong again (didn't I say that already?). Let's see, hmm, the latest
version is from 2006-10-11. That's not exactly what I would call a
decade, but of course YMMV. And the development goes on BTW.
>The fact is if the original makers of Lynx were
>creating it today it likely WOULD support javascript (as well as
>pretty much everything else).
It could, but doesn't have to.
>It would still be text based but it
>would have the ability to examine javascript code, extract links from
>said code and then present them in a plain text format (same with
>Flash). Of course...who the fuck would want to? I mean back in its
>heyday there was actually some viable, coherent REASONS for having a
>plain text browser...at this point...not so much.
Well, some people only want to see a faked, glittering, slowly rendering
facade, while others are much more interested in the actual content.
Nothing beats a non-graphical browser (or a "normal" one with disabled
images) when it comes to download and rendering speed.
>>show whether a website is usable or
>>just binary garbage. If it doesn't work in Lynx, the site is crap. It's
>>that simple.
>
>Only if you're trapped in 1996, Fruitcake.
_Fucking_ fruitcake, please.
>Being an Amish of the Internet is one thing...but when you
>expect EVERYONE ELSE to cater to YOUR line of deficiency...that's
>where you crossed the line, Downs. That's where you became this weeks
>entertainment package.
You're welcome. It's always a pleasure for me to entertain the "lighter"
people - it's so easy to do.
Micha
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|