|
|
Posted by Vicente Werner on 05/11/05 12:28
On 5/11/05, Marcus Bointon <marcus@synchromedia.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11 May 2005, at 07:12, Vicente Werner wrote:
> That's not necessarily true. It's far more subtle than that. This is
> kind of interesting: http://www.verifysoft.com/en_halstead_metrics.html
Well another source here differs somewhat:
http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20020625S0039
But you're right, number of lines is not the only factor -and that's
out of the question-.
> That's fair enough, but no reason to discount it for other
> developers. There's over 200k of condensed JS in gmail. Do you think
> there is the faintest possibility that its usability is improved by
> its dynamic implementation?
Of cours it improves, but I think that for MOST cases it's not worth
the effort -at least in my case where the visitors show a variety of
browsers to deal with-.
>I've not yet seen a so-called AJAX
> application that does not set out to improve user experience as a
> primary objective. Hell, we could even use it for server-side
> validation on the client!
Probably an AJAX technique will be worth the effort, and certainly I
won't go against it, but pure, client side? it's out of question for
me and the scenarios I deal with.
> I'd guess you're also against using the 'IE7' JS patcher, despite its
> utility.
Haven't cheked it enough to speak of it.
> I'm also curious - can you point me at a current,
> documented, non-degradable (page becomes unusable) bug report
> involving IE6 running qforms?
The qforms mailing list is full of glitches that render the page
mostly unsuable under certain conditions, and I've a intranet system
made for one of my former employers on wich certain widgets (the most
complex, or the interdependent ones stop working at random (and that's
what makes me so hesitant about the use of javascript, if it were
allways, I could do a work around)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|