|
|
Posted by Sir Robin on 12/26/07 10:23
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 08:55:56 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
<usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>Of course, you OBVIOUSLY didn't translate said site since their
>figures are looking at site ACCESS, not whether or not users have
>javascript enabled or not. And no fuckin DUH most sites will "work"
>to some level or extent without javascript enabled. The question,
>that these German retards are missing, is WHAT functionality of the
>site is being LOST. For example ALL of my sites will "work" without
>javascript enabled...however on most of them the only thing yer gonna
>get is a message telling you to install Flash and enable javascript.
So they do "work" but they don't really work at all... Heh...
>Of course your sites work without javascript, you're barely floating
>above the level of plain black text on a white background. It's not
>as if you're even capable of presenting users with a dynamic, modern,
>feature rich site.
You can provide a rich site, you can use javascript if you do it
correctly (althought it's not necessary) and your site can be highly
accessible and easy to browse without javascript or page having
javascript but in a way that it is not necessary for viewing...
>...and yet amazingly enough you STILL can't list them. Woah, big
>surprise. *nods*
>
>Maybe if you try searching for "home brew" projects and such you might
>be able to find some 7th graders computer science project in which
>they "programmed" a "web browser" capable of reading a few basic tags.
>LOL
Ignorance is a bliss, isn't it?
>>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.
>
>You confuse open source molestation with official development. The
>project is DEAD outside of home brew experimenting "led" by Thomas
>Dickey. And retard like yourself can download the source, fuck it all
>up, stamp their dumbfuck name on it and then put it out as a "release
>version"...of course, only someone equally as fuckin stupid (read
>"you") would actually believe that it was an official release in any
>sense of the word.
Zeros worth of an answer... Just "fuck you, I'm right" would had the
same message in a much sorter format ;)
>>It could, but doesn't have to.
>
>Let me translate into the language of REALITY:
>
>"It could, but they don't have that level of skill to program it in."
Oh, you know them? Oh well, nevermind, you are propably right then ;)
>>Well, some people only want to see a faked, glittering, slowly rendering
>>facade, while others are much more interested in the actual content.
>
>Content is nothing without presentation. On a fool would think
>otherwise.
Totally otherway around - presentation is nothing without content.
>>Nothing beats a non-graphical browser (or a "normal" one with disabled
>>images) when it comes to download and rendering speed.
>
>Yeah maybe if you magically traveled back to 1995 and were surfing on
>a 14.4 connection, you bumbling retard. Not to mention that with most
>sites the text content is shown first with the graphic content being
>shown afterwards, so really, you shouldn't notice ANY difference in
>speed...except for the fact that in about 1.7 seconds you'll see
>images along with the text.
Well, it does matter a LOT when I have only 4Mb connection, several
servers for different purposes running more or less
privately/publicly, many remote users, etc, etc... It most certainly
does make a different when viewing todays over-bloated sites.
--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku|*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|