Too much back and forth based on assumptions in this thread, me thinks.
What matters is that what gets released works reasonably well for all
end-users no matter what, so I'll just add the following (old) article...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_36.html
...where I'll especially
G.Sørtun wrote:
Too much back and forth based on assumptions in this thread, me thinks.
What matters is that what gets released works reasonably well for all
end-users no matter what, so I'll just add the following (old) article...
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_36.html
...where
I hate to point this out, but it would be unfortunate if those reading
this thread consider this an example of good use of CSS and HTML:
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_36.html
The page has 9 (yes 9!) wrapper or container divs that serve no
semantic purpose. Not to mention the empty
On 04.12.2010 11:38, Chetan Crasta wrote:
I hate to point this out, but it would be unfortunate if those reading
this thread consider this an example of good use of CSS and HTML:
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_36.html
The page has 9 (yes 9!) wrapper or container divs that serve no
This sounds interesting (as in: a brand new way to fail). Is there a
pattern or a rule of thumb regarding which script passes the block, and
do you perhaps know if the ruleset is something that comes with the
proxy or has been created anew?
djn
david wrote:
Well, my employer has 1600 staff
@Barney: I didn't say that the script would automatically identify
those elements that require hasLayout. I don't think such a script
exists.
I've made two example webpages which require zoom to work in IE7: one
with zoom:1 applied using CSS and the other with zoom applied with
javascript.
On 4/12/2010 9:38 PM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
I hate to point this out, but it would be unfortunate if those reading
this thread consider this an example of good use of CSS and HTML:
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_36.html
The page has 9 (yes 9!) wrapper or container divs that serve no
@Georg: The hellip is converted to three periods in Firefox 3.6's
View Source and in Firebug. This looks like a bug in the browser.
Probably...
... I wouldn't know since I never view source on web pages in
Firefox/Firebug/whatever. I use Opera for that since it doesn't convert,
add or
I think this article is relevant to this discussion:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2008/10/22/javascript-will-save-us-all/
I agree with it completely.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Alan Gresley a...@css-class.com wrote:
On 4/12/2010 9:38 PM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
I hate to point
On 12/4/10 10:04 AM, Chetan Crasta wrote:
I think this article is relevant to this discussion:
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2008/10/22/javascript-will-save-us-all/
I agree with it completely.
~Chetan
That's nice.
I have a red pencil box. I like it a lot.
Best,
~d
PS It is not a
David Laakso wrote:
PS It is not a list policy but bottom posting ... is appreciated.
By some : others prefer to read what the respondent has to say,
rather than having to wade through recycled material before
learning anything new.
Philip Taylor
--
Not sent from my i-Pad, i-Phone,
Sorry - I have no idea of the details behind their filtering.
Dejan Kozina wrote:
This sounds interesting (as in: a brand new way to fail). Is there a
pattern or a rule of thumb regarding which script passes the block, and
do you perhaps know if the ruleset is something that comes with the
If having valid stylesheets is important, one could simply apply zoom
using javascript: object.style.zoom=1;
But then your presentational layer is bound to the behavior layer :-(
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org | @thierrykoblentz
I couldn't guess why presentational javascript is a bad thing, so I
did a quick search and I found two articles that appear to address the
issue:
http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/presentational_javascript/index.html
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/separating_behavior_and_structure_2/
These don't seem to be huge disadvantages: I can't think of a good
reason to surf with Javascript disabled.
According to a recent blog post from Nicholas Zakas (Yahoo!) about 2% of
users browse the web without JS.
As a side note, I don't think it is always their choice.
Also, since the
The statistics provided by Nicholas Zakas are interesting!
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled (2% for Yahoo USA).
So I guess the decision whether to use presentational Javascript or
not
As one of those much maligned people who surf the web with js disabled, I
can tell you that any number representing % of users surfing with js
disallowed is suspect. I surf with js disabled, even though it can be a
pain, to avoid loading the multiple js files that are used by many sites to
do
From: Chetan Crasta About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled
(2% for Yahoo USA)
[-CM-] % of Yahoo visitors disabling js canNOT be used to extrapolate % of
all web users disabling js. I haven't visited Yahoo in years and I'm sure
that's true of a large % of web users. I also suspect
@Christie: It is true that Yahoo's stats cannot be extrapolated to the
whole Internet. Unfortunately it appears that these are the only stats
available.
Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics, usability and
semantics of a site, so it would be a pity if one disables it just to
avoid the
Thierry Koblentz wrote:
If having valid stylesheets is important, one could simply apply zoom
using javascript: object.style.zoom=1;
But then your presentational layer is bound to the behavior layer :-(
And if someone has turned off JS off, or their company's proxy server
purges incoming
Chetan Crasta wrote:
I couldn't guess why presentational javascript is a bad thing, so I
did a quick search and I found two articles that appear to address the
issue:
http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/presentational_javascript/index.html
Chetan Crasta wrote:
Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics,
Not for a site that's properly-designed in the first place.
usability
That is one point where JS can provide functionality.
and semantics of a site,
JS should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEMANTICS of a site. That
@David: I think it is established, with reasonable accuracy, that a
very small percentage (~1%) of surfers block Javascript. If somebody
wants to make sure that their site looks absolutely perfect to the 12
people that surf using Internet Explorer 6 with a Javascript blocking
proxy wearing
Well, my employer has 1600 staff members browsing the web with IE6,
protected by a proxy that strips some (but not all) Javascript.
Considerably more than 12 people. Upgrading from IE6 is forbidden
because a couple of enterprise apps we use don't work in anything except
IE6.
But whatever. I
@David: Javascript can improve the semantic-correctness of a site.
There are many CSS design patterns that use divs and spans as 'hooks'
to apply CSS. These divs and spans don't serve any semantic purpose.
Using Javascript to add these extra divs keeps the HTML clean and
semantic.
~Chetan
On
25 matches
Mail list logo
