|
|
Posted by Radio Man on 12/27/07 15:52
On Dec 27, 10:13 am, Onideus Mad Hatter <use...@backwater-
productions.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:23:18 +0200, Sir Robin
>
> <rob...@NO-SPAM-REMOVE-THIS.fiveam.org> 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...
>
> They work perfectly without stupidity...as you might imagine, I'm not
> really sympathetic to your "loss". ^_^
>
> >>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...
>
> The point you keep fumbling upon is viewing vs interacting. That's
> the whole basis behind those who are poser class wannabes and those
> who operate at a professional/artistic level. You can make a site
> VIEWABLE without much more than simple HTML in most cases...however to
> make that site INTERACTIVE...well, that requires a little something
> more...something more than you're capable of delivering.
>
> Any dribbling wannabe web developer can make the Internet equivalent
> of a photocopied flyer...but if you ever want to actually CREATE
> something...yeah, that's far beyond your current level of
> understanding.
>
> >>...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?
>
> Well you would know, huh Sunshine? Do be sure and let us all know
> when you finally manage to come up with an example other than Lynx,
> until then, keep fumbling out the backpedals for our amusement.
>
> >>>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 ;)
>
> The sad thing is that your level of reading comprehension is so
> incredibly low that, that's really all the better you could get out of
> what I posted.
>
> >>>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 ;)
>
> I don't need to know them to know what isn't there. It's real easy
> for a lesser like yourself to claim that you "just didn't want
> it"...but the reality of the situation is made abundantly clear when
> one bothers to look at your portfolio and they can't find ANYTHING of
> that level of coding ability. So either you're a lazy,
> procrastinating slop job or you just don't have the intelligence to
> handle it.
>
> >>Content is nothing without presentation. On a fool would think
> >>otherwise.
> >Totally otherway around - presentation is nothing without content.
>
> LOL, you really are a child, aren't you? ^_^
>
> There's a joke in the retail world...it goes something like...you
> could easily sell a shit filled diaper to someone with the right
> packaging. The point being that often times you don't need ANY
> content at all in order to sell something.
>
That is true but people do get a bit sick of some things, as an
example a lot of sites are going back to a simple interface with less
flash and the like.
> Humans are EMOTIONALLY intelligent beings and "eye-candy" influences
> our emotional being more than the content itself. Often times it's
> more important to convey emotions and feelings than it is to try and
> get someone to figure out and comprehend some complex array of
> arguments and facts. Facts are meaningless without emotions.
Hmmmm, all this depends on what your wanting to do with the web,
although what you suggest works well for sites like Myspace and
Youtube it would not work for say umm a site such as Vision Australia
or a site such as:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316941
>
> Presentation really is everything and content only serves as a tool
> that can be used back it up with. If you have nothing BUT
> content...nobody really cares.
That really depends on what the content (or rather) what the text
actually is.
But yeah I think it's odd that people flame things like flash and JS
all the time when they can actually be a good tool.
I always say that with web design / development people should use the
right tool for the job, wether that be just plain HTML or JS or
whatever.
<snip>
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|