Thanks for sharing your views.
On Nov 11, 2:04 am, eskimoblood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, there seems a some scripts that never use any of the mootools > shortcuts and functions. Then all scripts are uncompressed, something > seems not to be needed in the live version like dbug. We have an > simple ant task (using YUI Packer) in our deploy process that packs > all neccerary js or css file in ones. So 'very bad' was a little bit > harsh but if you use a framework it makes sense to create your > application around it. Also 14 jsFiles with 200kb is ´to much for > some simple effects. > > On 11 Nov., 09:07, Garrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > @eskimoblood: > > > I totally understand what you mean. During TV.com's redesign, I was > > the lead producer (front end dood) so I enjoy the positive and > > negative feedback. I know compression and comment-removal is the way > > to go. I had the plan to get it started, since you'll notice most of > > the css and js files are .src.css and .src.js. Sadly, after the > > redesign, the web property is now being handled by another team and I > > don't know if they ever plan on compressing the files. > > > You said "both they use it in a very bad way". Could you point some of > > those out on TV.com? I'm trying to take your comments as constructive > > criticism, cause everything can be or is a learning experience. > > > Thanks! > > > On Nov 9, 3:55 am, eskimoblood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > But take a look at the source, both they use it in a very bad way. > > > TV.com also used all files in uncompressed and commented version. It > > > looks like they see some fancy effect and thought, oh that's such a > > > cool accordion lets download mootools. That's not the way a framework > > > should be used. I know its hard to refactory your old 90's scripts but > > > you should to this. > > > > On 9 Nov., 12:01, Garrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > That's pretty awesome to know. TV.com does too..
