I have already explained how I see things, and nothing you've said changed my mind. The only thing you've said that I think is reasonable is that the site should have graceful degradation when JavaScript is enabled. *THAT* I am willing to do. I just updated the front page to degrade gracefully when JS is disabled.
But as for how the website works by default, this is what I think: (1) I think I have already compromised more than enough. At some point I have to draw the line and get *some* of the stuff I want too. You can't please everybody and at some point the guy who does the work should get the final say. (2) I don't think that just going in and removing the animation you don't like constitutes a contribution. I was thinking more along the lines of you spending a few weeks working on the website. (3) I think that the slideshow is good, I think it does a good job at drawing attention to the *news* about the 2.4.7 release, or relevant tips about PDL. I think that this has a lot of value, and yes, whenever you try to draw the user's attention to something that you think is important, that by definition, is a type of "distraction", and that doesn't make it bad. In any case, I hope that you will be satisfied with the last change. As I said earlier, the only thing you've said that I think is a valid point is that a website should degrade gracefully in the absence of JS unless it is truly infeasible to meet the website's basic function without JS (e.g. some ajax apps). I have implemented graceful degradation. Daniel. On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote: > 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 . > -- Intolerant people should be shot. _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
