Hello Nick,
"BCS" <n...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:a6268ff14f148ccd857550de...@news.digitalmars.com...
Your not countering any point I tried to make. Let me be more
explicit, you, Nick, maybe have good reasons to not allow scripts,
but I don't think SO is a good example of why you don't. If every
site did JS as well as SO, I suspect you wouldn't hate them in the
first place and you would never have seen what it looks like with
them turned off.
As I see it, you don't like JS etc. because it can and is abused in
ways if you used JS etc. would cause you problems, so you don't use
them (a legitimate choice). SO is painful to use without JS etc. (not
under depute). SO is at fault; doesn't follow. Blame, JS etc., blame
the people who abuse them, blame the people who designed them. But
unless you can show how SO would cause YOU a problem using it the way
it was designed to be used, I don't think you can get away with
blaming SO for the problems.
OTOH, given that there are people out there that don't allow scripts,
I will grant the point that a site that is hard or impossible to use
without them is being stupid (or has decided that they are willing to
loose some segment of the population and, BTW, I think SO has
explicitly stated they are in the second camp)
I'll put it this way: what's the *point* of SO having things that
don't work without JS
That they do work with it.
and forcing that always-present nag banner?
I'll grant that one.
There is no real legitimate reason. Ease-of-implementation sure as
hell doesn't count, because JS and DOM implementations are notoriously
lousy to work with. The biggest reason that could be realistically
argued is that they're attempting to force it on the very people who
obviously don't want it. Saying that such a move is downright arrogant
and disrespectful would be putting it mildly. Such a site shouldn't be
encouraged.
Using JS alows many thing to be done without reloading the page. This is
a plus as far as I care. Making it work with JS *and* without is harder than
either by its self. Given the choice between a high functionality version
and/or a lower version, the worst choice is to do only the low version.
And besides that, there is one, and only one, *good* way to use JS
in a site: Create the site completely non-JS. Then add in optional
JS in the few places where it could actually improve responsiveness
and usability.
I'll grant the point with some (significant) restrictions: the sites
core feature set should be usable with JS.
It should be usable either with or without JS. (Did you mean "without"
here?)
Oops, typo.
For SO the core feature set IMHO (and I suspect not in yours) is
being able to read questions and answers from pages Google feeds me.
If that can be done without much pain, I think that's all you can
expect to demand.
Last I checked (admittedly a while ago, maybe it's changed?), there
were issues with posting, searching and voting without JS. Not only
are those fundamental parts of what makes SO SO, but on a technical
level, those are absolutely trivial things that have absolutely zero
valid excuse not to work without JS.
IIRC something north of 80% of SO's traffic is from Google by non or first
time users. What to take a guess how many of them do anything but read the
text and go back to there job? SO's core objective is to have good answers
to questions. As long as most of there user can post questions they get that
done. As for search, frankly, there's problems even *with* JS. If I want
to find a particular question, I use Google with site:stackoverflow.com.
If I just want an answer to a question, I don't care where the answer comes
from so I just Google for it. Voting? Again, as long as most people can vote,
stuff works.
and forces that OpenID crap,
What's wrong with it? Really, I want to know.
It's a phisher's wet dream - it makes ordinary logins look like Fort
Knox. If a person *tried* to design a system that maximized
phishability, I don't think anyone could have done a better job.
[...]
And even then you object because it makes it *easy* to screw the
pooch big time rather than *forcing* you to risk doing so?
As I said, SO effectively does force it. (Unless something's changed?)
OK SO forces you to use OpenID (if you want to me more than a drive by user)
but it doesn't force you to screw the pooch with it.
(You can always open a different OpenID per site and you will be no
worse off than without OpenID and might even be beter; at leat one of
the providers has to be implemented competently...)
frankly even as trivial as 3-foot-high public restroom
hand-dryers that my 6-foot self has to damage my back bending down to
use (over years of repeated use, of course)
For me it's a 6'3" frame and kitchen sinks that are about 6" to low to wash
dishes in!
, I'm just really, well,
pardon my tone here, but I really am just goddamn fed up with trying
to work around idiotic shit every-fucking-where I turn. I've had
enough, and the last thing I need right now is yet another goddamn
workaround (again, pardon my anger, it's not directed at you), this
time because it's getting to the point where every single time I want
to find an answer or give an answer to something, I have to deal with
SO, simply because that's all anyone ever uses anymore.
Speed limits are a work around for people being complete and utter morons
(at x - 3 sigma). Capitalism is a workaround for people being greedy (man
I wish Mr. Marx hadn't been so wrong). Clothing is a work around for it being
cold (than and hormones). Computer screens and keyboards are are a work around
for lack of brain-computer interface. The whole darn world is one hacked
up kludge of a workaround.
I still
consider it a "fad" though, because that's precisely the category it
belongs in. Same with mandatory-JS, overuse of JS, misuse of JS, and
JS-nagging. I know I'm breaking the literal definition, but as far
as
I'm concerned, a fad still deserves to be labeled "fad" even if
there
just happens to be enough morons out there to keep it going well
beyond the lifetime it deserves.
What would you replace it with? Static HTML is good for showing
static content and filling out (simple) forms: basic I/O. If that's
all you are doing, by all means, make it work with JS. But what about
the other 90% of the stuff out there? Anything that is more than
minimally interactive. From where I sit, the choices are JS, a thick
client, Flash (Yuck!!) or something else that will have 90% of the
problems of at least one, it not more, of the above.
In many cases JS doesn't need to be replaced. It just needs to be used
(if at all) as a supplement to server-code and static-HTML. Many uses
of JS should outright disappear, of course, like slow choppy
unnecessary animations, or opening new windows while tricking HTML
validators into thinking you're compliant.
I'll grant those cases.
Anything that can't be reasonably implemented with static-HTML doesn't
belong on the web in the first place. It belongs either, yes, as a
think client
When your users know up front they are going to use it more than twice, sure.
Maybe what's needed is something that acts as a safe sandbox that a web page
can download a light weight client into. Oh wait, that JS or Flash with the
90% that's broken removed. :b If it's worth anyone using, some moron with
make something annoying out of it.
or as something along the general lines of Adam Ruppe's
link?
First, I don't think your nuts, however I think the economics are against
you here. From the web page writers standpoint, given that most user DO allow
JS, the cheapest way to deliver the best user experience to the most people
is to do each part in whatever way is easiest to do a good job with. It doesn't
pay to spend hardly any time making the site better for a few percent of
your user base when the same time could be spent making it better for the
other 95+%. From the other end, making a better browser platform, the most
bang for the buck comes with improving what the most people use. A wholesale
replacement might happen, but not any time soon.
--
... <IXOYE><
