|
|
Posted by Sir Robin on 12/31/07 15:51
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:13:59 -0800, Onideus Mad Hatter
<usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 12:23:18 +0200, Sir Robin
><robsku@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". ^_^
I would say that "loss" should really, in this case, be written inside
quotes, but... you already did that ;)
>>>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.
The interactivity you are talking about is not, IMHO worth of
mentioning.... not really something I would even use the word
'interactive' for describing... Mostly it's useless changes on how
exactly the page does what it does anyway - and while it really does
not affect much the users that have the features you require enabled
(really, they would not give a rats ass about the difference between
the design you could provide with other means and the one you do use)
but it does affect the others...
So the only point of doing the things your way is that some people
simply like to be ignorant little bitches who can brag about their
skillz... beeing professional has nothing to do with that as any
commercial or non-commercial really professional sites do not make the
mistake you are making.... the proof beeing that they are actually
viewable even with lynx while they still rely a lot on javascript and
other weird methods.
>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.
Actually I was like you.... hmm... 10 years ago, in 1997, I used a lot
of scripts to make my site interactive... I learned about making my
scripts cross-browser compatible and making the site work even if the
scripts were not supported by users client... and thatmeant a LOT more
work back then than it does today...
Then I realized that it wasnt important. What's important was the
content, the interface (with which you could easily find anything
available from the site) and the fact that the site is - yes -
VIEWABLE.
Who cares about your fancy pull-down menus if they cant find the
article they are looking for? And who cares about lack of them if they
are really looking to read an article? Most viewers are not there to
see how interactive your site is, they are there for what it can
actually provide for them.
>>>...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.
I already did, Stardust... Links & Dillo I have mentioned long ago...
I could also mention netrik and others, but you asked for an example,
not for a 10 examples :p
>>>>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.
As far as I know, my portfolio is not available online and you have no
idea of my coding abilities...
Here is couple scripts, one made with perl, one with bournel shell
scripting:
http://salamanteri.homelinux.net/software/index.php?lang=en
Here's couple java programs:
http://ostos.sourceforge.net/ (shot:
http://ostos.sourceforge.net/ostos.png )
http://javatris.sourceforge.net/
I can certainly give you a lot more examples (these that I have
published are rather simple programs) made with C, Perl, PHP, bourne
shell scripting or java... I have also worked as a programmer (or
code-whore as some say), but I can't give any examples I did for that
company as it's their property code :(
>>>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.
*snip*
Well well... Of course it's a totally different thing to create and
online-pharmacy site than, for example, site for nvidia (where the
accessibility is done professionally even though the site uses an
interface that, by default, uses funtionality certainly not available
on lower-level browsers).
I'd rather be paid by nvidia than an online-pharmacy ;) I did think we
were talking about truly professional work here...
>>>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.
>
>Most over bloated sites are a direct result of fumbling wannabes like
>yourself who have no idea how to build a site past the plain black
>text on a white background level without fucking it all up in 38
>different directions.
You are confusing me with someone who actually does not know anything
about standards, programming, web-design and who has been doing the
job for 2 years at max... Sorry, no banana.
> One of my favorite forms of attack in web
>development debates is to take other assholes shit and then recode the
>slop so that all the base code, images, video, etc are reduced to at
>~least~ 50% of their original size with NO loss in visual quality.
In most cases, what exactly do you need the video for? I do know about
encoding video, audio or pretty much anything, but it's only usefull
when there is an actual need for a video....
>But then, I guess you can't be blamed entirely, it's not as if they
>teach things like split form, cross format and stacked form image
>encoding techniques in any college flunkie level course. Most of the
>techniques I use when building a site are based on principles that
>aren't even glanced at in most college level curriculums.
I did not learn my programming and othe software knowledge in
college... that would be laughable.
>"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
>gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )
Indeed... and it's not bad, it's just
rather sad :)
--
***/--- 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]
|