On Thursday 19 August 2010 16:50:04 Daniel Carrera wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > Thanks for the the new site, it looks nice. It appears the JavaScript > > animation at the top is gone, but now there's an annoying animation at > > the box where "2.4.7 is out!", even without hovering the cursor above > > it. > > The box animation is not new. It has been there for months and it has > already been slowed down. No, it does not consume any meaningful CPU, > and I cannot imagine how it can affect people with sight problems (I > pay attention to accessibility). >
It can for some people - not all. See: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03610.html * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03751.html Furthermore, all people find animations distracting, and it traps the eye and prevents concentration on different parts of the page. > I have already compromised a lot and moved the website many steps in > the direction you want. At some point you have to compromise too and > accept that other people have a different opinion that also has merit. > Otherwise we get into the absurd situation where the website gradually > moves more and more toward what one person, or a specific group wants, > ignoring other opinions, because at every step we "compromise" between > wherever the website is, and where this person or group want it to be. > Something like this: > > * Initially the website has JS on the banner and the slide show. > * Someone says he wants zero JavaScript. I didn't say I want zero JavaScript. I said I don't want any JS animations, at least not those that I have not initiated *and* have an option to cancel. > * We compromise to significantly slow the transitions. > * We make an unrelated update to the website. > * Same person says that he wants zero JavaScript. > * We "compromise" again to removing JavaScript from the banner. > * We make an unrelated update to the website. > * same person says that he wants zero JavaScript. > * We "compromise" again to something else. > > And so on and so forth. > > This is not fairness. Especially when the person who complains is not > active in updating the website. At some point the zero-JS camp has to > compromise too and understand that other people do like having some JS > on the website and that they should get some of what they want too. Well, I'll take the challenge and I'm going to try to improve the PDL site from its sources to get rid of the animation and make sure it looks fine with JS disabled. I've also learned how to configure NoScript to blacklist specific sub-domains, and have disabled all JS on pdl.perl.org (and not the rest of *.perl.org whose JS I want because it's not intrusive.). Now the front page looks completely off (try it without JS) but at least my eye is not distracted by the movement. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/ Funny Anti-Terrorism Story - http://shlom.in/enemy God considered inflicting XSLT as the tenth plague of Egypt, but then decided against it because he thought it would be too evil. Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply . _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
