www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Do you think free ad's might help advance D?

reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that presupposes that 
usable work could be found for any takers.

-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 11 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that presupposes 
 that usable work could be found for any takers.


This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site that 
incessantly nags non-JavaScript users, and forces that OpenID crap, and then 
start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend site that I want to 
create but will probably never get around to, and even if I did they'd 
probably just send their lawyers after me and even if they didn't then 99% 
of programmers out there would still just bitch about how I'm not enough of 
a spineless group-think monkey to blindly and excitedly hop onto and 
fellatiate any and every idiotic tech fad that pops up like all the rest of 
them are...

But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)

-------------------------------
Not sent from an iPhone.
Jun 11 2010
next sibling parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...
 

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-lau
 nches-second-round/
 
 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that
 presupposes that usable work could be found for any takers.
 you





 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site
 that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users,


While you many have a good reasons to not using JavaScript, SO (as opposed 
to 99% of the sites out there) is not a good example case to support your 
reasons with.


 and forces that OpenID crap,


What's wrong with it? Really, I want to know. 


 and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend
 site that I want to create but will probably never get around to, and
 even if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me


BTW, they have a API out and are running an app content (with real prizes) 
so you might be able to get it done without any flack.


 and
 [...] 99% of programmers out there would still just
 bitch about how I'm not [...] hop onto and fellatiate any and every idiotic
 tech fad that pops up like all the rest of them are...


Re: JS, I'm not sure about "idiotic" but I think calling it a "fad" is like 
calling the Mississippi river a little bit of water.


 
 But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)
 


-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 12 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14ef58ccd817421b8206 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site
 that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users,


 While you many have a good reasons to not using JavaScript, SO (as opposed 
 to 99% of the sites out there) is not a good example case to support your 
 reasons with.


Turn off JS and visit SO. You'll see what I mean. There isn't a damn thing 
in SO that can't be easily done without JS, but certain parts of it are 
broken and there's that big red obnoxius always-present nag-banner. If 
you're making a website, and you start to see yourself typing in anything 
that amounts to "This site needs/wants..." then right there that's a red 
flag that you're being a fucking douchebag.

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.


 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. Plus, the people in charge of 
OpenID seem to not give the slightest crap (or just not know what the hell 
they're doing).

Links:

(Pardon the absolutely, completely, practically award-winningly piss poor 
site design. It wasn't like this when the article was put up, but now, it 
doesn't look like there's a way to link to it without all that idiotic 
surrounding bullshit that takes up 75% of the page-space)
http://www.marcoslot.net/apps/openid/

http://www.links.org/?p=187

http://www.links.org/?p=188


 and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend
 site that I want to create but will probably never get around to, and
 even if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me


 BTW, they have a API out and are running an app content (with real prizes) 
 so you might be able to get it done without any flack.


Yea, I've come across that. Still have to get around to using it though :). 
Plus, I'm skeptical about how far they'd allow things to be taken (It's a 
business, so there's obviously some sort of revenue-generation, and I'm 
guessing it's ads.), and also, I'd be surprised if there's a way to get 
around that OpenID requirement without amounting to a competing service that 
merely merges SO's results into its own.


 and
 [...] 99% of programmers out there would still just
 bitch about how I'm not [...] hop onto and fellatiate any and every 
 idiotic
 tech fad that pops up like all the rest of them are...


 Re: JS, I'm not sure about "idiotic" but I think calling it a "fad" is 
 like calling the Mississippi river a little bit of water.


It's more like calling "sagging" a fad. That moronic "fashion" has been 
around since I started junior high (a loooong time ago, and I thought it was 
idiotic and ugly as hell even back then) and by some bizarre twist of fate 
it's still going (though I honestly can't imagine why - other than an 
epidemic of brain damage). 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.
Jun 12 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff14ef58ccd817421b8206 news.digitalmars.com...
 

 Hello Nick,
 

 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site
 that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users,
 


 While you many have a good reasons to not using JavaScript, SO (as
 opposed to 99% of the sites out there) is not a good example case to
 support your reasons with.
 


 Turn off JS and visit SO. You'll see what I mean. There isn't a damn
 thing in SO that can't be easily done without JS, but certain parts of
 it are broken and there's that big red obnoxius always-present
 nag-banner. If you're making a website, and you start to see yourself
 typing in anything that amounts to "This site needs/wants..." then
 right there that's a red flag that you're being a fucking douchebag.
 


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)


 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. 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.


 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.


So you have no spesific objection to SO using OpenID but rather the exsitance 
of it in the first place? And even then you object because it makes it *easy* 
to screw the pooch big time rather than *forcing* you to risk doing so? (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...)


 and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend
 site that I want to create but will probably never get around to,
 and
 even if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me


 BTW, they have a API out and are running an app content (with real
 prizes) so you might be able to get it done without any flack.
 


 Yea, I've come across that. Still have to get around to using it
 though :). Plus, I'm skeptical about how far they'd allow things to be
 taken (It's a business, so there's obviously some sort of
 revenue-generation, and I'm guessing it's ads.), and also, I'd be
 surprised if there's a way to get around that OpenID requirement
 without amounting to a competing service that merely merges SO's
 results into its own.
 


Look at the blog, they have tried about 5 or 6 different ad system and haven't 
made enough money off any to worry about. As far as I can tell, they are 
running on VC and revenue from the jobs site.


 and
 [...] 99% of programmers out there would still just
 bitch about how I'm not [...] hop onto and fellatiate any and every
 idiotic
 tech fad that pops up like all the rest of them are...


 Re: JS, I'm not sure about "idiotic" but I think calling it a "fad"
 is like calling the Mississippi river a little bit of water.
 


 It's more like calling "sagging" a fad. That moronic "fashion" has
 been around since I started junior high (a loooong time ago, and I
 thought it was idiotic and ugly as hell even back then) and by some
 bizarre twist of fate it's still going (though I honestly can't
 imagine why - other than an epidemic of brain damage).


I wouldn't bet on either side of that one. :b


 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. 


-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 12 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14f148ccd857550de288 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 and forcing that always-present nag banner? 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.



 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?)



 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.

If the site was doing DHTML games, ok, it would make sense for that not to 
work without JS. If there was some sort of functionality that had an 
optional drag-and-drop interface (assuming it made good UI-design sense), 
then it would make sense for that optional drag-and-drop not to work without 
JS. Etc.

But the restrictions SO does have? No. They're like a coffee-machine that 
refuses to work properly with decaf: It's idiotic and pointless, and it 
doesn't matter one bit if 99% of coffee drinkers drink regular: it's still a 
pointless, useless restriction with absolutely no valid reason.



 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.


 So you have no spesific objection to SO using OpenID but rather the 
 exsitance of it in the first place?


No, I object to it being the *only* registration system supported by SO. I 
don't give a crap how much OpenID-supported stuff is out there as long as 
I'm not forced to use it. And even in SO's case, I still wouldn't mind them 
forcing it if it weren't for the facts that:

1. There is no other service comparable to SO. (There have been sites that 
attempted to fill the same goal even before SO, before they're all so 
terrible, even compared to SO, that they may as well not even exist.)

2. Even if a comparable site did pop up that didn't force OpenID (or JS), it 
wouldn't matter because SO has 90+% mindshare and all of the content. So a 
site that did things right wouldn't have a chance of making a dent because 
SO has too much momentum for anyone else to realistically be able to make a 
foothold regardless of merit. Hell, look how much trouble D is having at 
overcoming C++'s mindshare and marketshare. And the improvements D has over 
C++ are enormous and practically speak for themselves. With that power SO 
has over their market, comes responsibility...which SO has been more than 
dropping the ball on.



 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?)



 (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...)


Perhaps. But between throw-away email addresses to protect against spam and 
worthless spam filters, Haxe to work around PHP and ActionScript, AdBlock 
and NoScript to work around flash-ads that literally make it impossible for 
me to read the actual page content (don't *anyone* ever try to tell me that 
ADD doesn't exist - when you can't read code because the cursor is 
blinking - yea, you *know* those armchair neurologists are full of shit), 
DownloadHelper to work around idiots deciding for themselves that the video 
player *they* choose to directly embed videos into is better for me than 
whatever the fuck player *I* choose to use for *myself*, KatMouse to work 
around Window's crappy handing of scroll-wheel focus, Windows to workaround 
the lack of a decent Unix file manager, FF2 to workaround the lousy UIs of 
every other browser in existence, and a million other fucking things, and 
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), 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.



 Look at the blog, they have tried about 5 or 6 different ad system and 
 haven't made enough money off any to worry about. As far as I can tell, 
 they are running on VC and revenue from the jobs site.


VC funding won't run a company forever. But yea, hopefully the jobs site 
will end up being all they really need.



 It's more like calling "sagging" a fad. That moronic "fashion" has
 been around since I started junior high (a loooong time ago, and I
 thought it was idiotic and ugly as hell even back then) and by some
 bizarre twist of fate it's still going (though I honestly can't
 imagine why - other than an epidemic of brain damage).


 I wouldn't bet on either side of that one. :b


Heh :)



 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.

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 (very much underrated these days - crazy thing is, most people who 
sneer at them don't even know why - they just blindly follow trends), or as 
something along the general lines of Adam Ruppe' s DWS (which is a 
technology that *should* have been created 10 years ago by the people who 
instead wasted their time creating crap like JS, DHTML, Applets and Flash - 
and that's *not* hindsight, I had that opinion back then too, but well, 
"nobody listen to poor Zathros", and I was just finishing hish school and 
starting college, so I didn't have time for it myself, plus I was busy with 
gave dev) or OSX's Sherlock and Watson (which were a major reason I bought a 
Mac in the first place...which I ended up hating 2 years later for other 
reasons, but that's another story).
Jun 12 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff14f148ccd857550de288 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><
Jun 12 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14f1d8ccd880e8e83886 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,

 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.


They're far from mutually exclusive (but, then, you already addressed that 
below...)



 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.


Only slightly harder. Unless you try to go completely overboard with JS, but 
that would be a bad thing anyway.



 Given the choice between a high functionality version and/or a lower 
 version, the worst choice is to do only the low version.


I would disagree that "JS == high-functionality and non-JS == 
low-functionality" is true in the general sense. I'm not saying that the 
reverse is necessarily true, but I think that's a false dichotomy.



 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.


But then the people who *do* have reason to participate more than that are 
pushed through the cracks. I guess I'm just real damn tired of always being 
in that 1% group that everyone always has some rationalization for not 
giving half a shit about. Story of my life.



 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!


Yes! I can't do anything non-trivial in the kitchen without my back starting 
to hurt. And then there's bathroom sinks, and, of course knee-height urinals 
that you can't use without splashing. I can kind of understand some of that 
when a restroom only has one of each (accessibility for shorties), but then 
you see ones that have 2 of each and 9 times out of 10, *both* will be 
ridiculously low (what about accessibility for, umm, tallies? Heh). Of 
course they probably do that because it saves them three dollars during 
construction vs having ones at different heights, but that just gets right 
back to nobody giving a crap about poor Zathros...erm...I mean anyone who 
isn't within about one standard deviation of theoretical norm.

I really feel sorry for basketball players (and anyone else that tall). At 
least I'm short enough I never have to worry about low doorframes unless I'm 
touring a Frank Lloyd Wright building.



 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.


Certainly true. But those are ones that can't be helped (at least not 
currently, anyway). These tech issues definitely *can* be.



 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.


Yea, true. But some technologies (JS/Flash) just plain encourage such things 
(and provide little-to-no recourse for the user) more than others do.



 or as something along the general lines of Adam Ruppe's


 link?


It does seem to be surprisingly hard to google:

http://arsdnet.net/dws/

Granted, the current design doesn't put quite as much focus on sandboxing as 
would be needed to really rival JS, but that can still be done without any 
major changes to the basic idea.



 First, I don't think your nuts,


Well that just goes to show how nuts you are! (J/K ;) )



 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+%.


One problem with that is that most sites that use exactly that logic end up 
using JS poorly and wind up with something much worse than if they hadn't 
used JS at all (Granted, SO isn't as bad in certain regards as other sites, 
but as a programmer, many of those other sites are a little easier for me to 
ignore than SO).

Plus, remember about ten or so years ago when there was a lot of discussion 
in the web dev world about page-loading times, and the general consensus was 
that anything that took longer than a few seconds to load and render was bad 
from a usability standpoint? Well, now it's a regular occurrence for these 
JS sites to take much more time than that, and then still act sluggish once 
you're there, and that's despite increases in computational power (even for 
low-tech me), despite the fact that we've gone from mostly-dial-up to 
mostly-broadband, despite the *claims* that it's allegedly faster (it 
frequently isn't in actual practice), despite the fact that *we knew better* 
10+ years ago.

Speaking of things we knew better only a decade ago: Animation. Back when 
animation on the web meant "GIF" and "blink tag", everyone and their 
grandmother quickly realized it was piss-poor style. But now that it's 
implemented with DHTML and Flash, common sense design has gone clear out the 
window and the people who say the *same thing* ("page animation is bad") 
just get viewed as if they're some sort of internet version of the amish 
("How dare you say anything bad about a new technology! If it were up to 
people like you we'd be using punch-cards and vacuum tubes!" I'm 
paraphrasing, of course).



 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.


Yea. What bugs me even more is that we had a far better opportunity to do it 
the right way about ten years ago (all that talk about the net/web needing 
better interactivity), and the opportunity got completely squandered by 
dot-bombs who couldn't see past their nose.
Jun 12 2010
parent reply BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff14f1d8ccd880e8e83886 news.digitalmars.com...
 

 Hello Nick,
 
 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.
 


 Only slightly harder. Unless you try to go completely overboard with
 JS, but that would be a bad thing anyway.
 


Maybe I should have said "Making it work implemented in terms of JS *and* 
not is harder than either by its self." But then your point may still be 
valid


 Given the choice between a high functionality version and/or a lower
 version, the worst choice is to do only the low version.
 


 I would disagree that "JS == high-functionality and non-JS ==
 low-functionality" is true in the general sense. I'm not saying that
 the reverse is necessarily true, but I think that's a false dichotomy.
 


I see three cases:
-JS and non-JS look and feel the same to the user (do non-JS)
-JS can be tacked on the non-JS and people without scripts just loose some 
non critical functionality.
-Some functionality can be done via JS or no-JS but they work in completely 
different ways. (like voting: do you reload the page or not?)

The first two cases are uninteresting and I was ignoring them.  In the third 
case, If you assume the devs aren't stupid, the JS version has to have higher 
functionality than the non-JS one.


 First, I don't think your nuts,
 


 Well that just goes to show how nuts you are! (J/K ;) )
 


The entire CS department figured that one out years ago.


 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+%.
 


 One problem with that is that most sites that use exactly that logic
 end up using JS poorly and wind up with something much worse than if
 they hadn't used JS at all (Granted, SO isn't as bad in certain
 regards as other sites, but as a programmer, many of those other sites
 are a little easier for me to ignore than SO).


Why assume they will be any more competent in static HTML than in JS? I've 
based all of what I'm saying on the assumption that the devs aren't stupid, 
because if they are, they can make all kinds of problems no mater what they 
use.
 

 Plus, remember about ten or so years ago when there was a lot of
 discussion in the web dev world about page-loading times, and the
 general consensus was that anything that took longer than a few
 seconds to load and render was bad from a usability standpoint? Well,
 now it's a regular occurrence for these JS sites to take much more
 time than that, and then still act sluggish once you're there, and
 that's despite increases in computational power (even for low-tech
 me), despite the fact that we've gone from mostly-dial-up to
 mostly-broadband, despite the *claims* that it's allegedly faster (it
 frequently isn't in actual practice), despite the fact that *we knew
 better* 10+ years ago.


Up front times vs. background times <copy arguments from above :)>
 
-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 13 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff14f568ccd8dfcc495764 news.digitalmars.com...

 Hello Nick,


 I would disagree that "JS == high-functionality and non-JS ==
 low-functionality" is true in the general sense. I'm not saying that
 the reverse is necessarily true, but I think that's a false dichotomy.


 I see three cases:
 -JS and non-JS look and feel the same to the user (do non-JS)
 -JS can be tacked on the non-JS and people without scripts just loose some 
 non critical functionality.
 -Some functionality can be done via JS or no-JS but they work in 
 completely different ways. (like voting: do you reload the page or not?)

 The first two cases are uninteresting and I was ignoring them.  In the 
 third case, If you assume the devs aren't stupid, the JS version has to 
 have higher functionality than the non-JS one.


Hmm, I guess we see things differently here. To me, that voting example 

request, and then toss in a JS-override that, instead of being a new page 
request, just sends a little message to the server which, in turn, does 
exactly what it nomally would, but without rendering and sending a new page. 
Ie, just a minor variation on what's normally done.



 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+%.


 One problem with that is that most sites that use exactly that logic
 end up using JS poorly and wind up with something much worse than if
 they hadn't used JS at all (Granted, SO isn't as bad in certain
 regards as other sites, but as a programmer, many of those other sites
 are a little easier for me to ignore than SO).


 Why assume they will be any more competent in static HTML than in JS? I've 
 based all of what I'm saying on the assumption that the devs aren't 
 stupid, because if they are, they can make all kinds of problems no mater 
 what they use.


I assume that for two reasons:

1. I've seen screwed-up static-HTML pages and I've seen screwed up JS pages. 
The worst of the static-HTML screwups have always seemed to be far better 
than then the worst of the JS screwups.

2. Static-HTML just simply provides less opportunity for serious screw-ups. 
It's like a butter knife vs a carving knife: If an idiot's gonna use one of 
them, better the butter knife. Yea, they can still cause trouble with it, 
but not as badly, and not as easily.



 Plus, remember about ten or so years ago when there was a lot of
 discussion in the web dev world about page-loading times, and the
 general consensus was that anything that took longer than a few
 seconds to load and render was bad from a usability standpoint? Well,
 now it's a regular occurrence for these JS sites to take much more
 time than that, and then still act sluggish once you're there, and
 that's despite increases in computational power (even for low-tech
 me), despite the fact that we've gone from mostly-dial-up to
 mostly-broadband, despite the *claims* that it's allegedly faster (it
 frequently isn't in actual practice), despite the fact that *we knew
 better* 10+ years ago.


 Up front times vs. background times <copy arguments from above :)>


Yes, but from a usability standpoint (especially for the average Joe), that 
distinction doesn't make one bit of difference: It's still a delay before 
being able to deal with the page.
Jun 13 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message
 news:a6268ff14f568ccd8dfcc495764 news.digitalmars.com...
 

 Hello Nick,
 

 I would disagree that "JS == high-functionality and non-JS ==
 low-functionality" is true in the general sense. I'm not saying that
 the reverse is necessarily true, but I think that's a false
 dichotomy.
 


 I see three cases:
 -JS and non-JS look and feel the same to the user (do non-JS)
 -JS can be tacked on the non-JS and people without scripts just loose
 some
 non critical functionality.
 -Some functionality can be done via JS or no-JS but they work in
 completely different ways. (like voting: do you reload the page or
 not?)
 The first two cases are uninteresting and I was ignoring them.  In
 the third case, If you assume the devs aren't stupid, the JS version
 has to have higher functionality than the non-JS one.
 


 Hmm, I guess we see things differently here. To me, that voting




same way both with and without JS.


 Make it work with a
 normal non-JS page request, and then toss in a JS-override that,
 instead of being a new page request, just sends a little message to
 the server which, in turn, does exactly what it nomally would, but
 without rendering and sending a new page. Ie, just a minor variation
 on what's normally done.
 


Lets use that as a test case:

Pure JS: the onClick action triggers an AJAX POST call that records the vote 
and reports success or failure.

Pure non-JS version: the vote button is done via the same server side code 
as above but now the HTML includes a form element and extra information is 
package along with the POST to the server can give an HTTP 303 back to the 
original page (plus an anchor) Somehow (and extra query parameter tacked 
on the end?) the system keeps track if it should report success or failure. 
(All doable but little more complex)

Ether or: The server side looks the same but the HTML render does the non-JS 
version and sets the onClick. Also you need to include some JS code that 
disables the form to prevent the page from reloading.

Option three has all the complexity of 1 and 2, with very little overlap 
plus some more. As for that overlap, I think all of it should be library 
code (the URL decoder) or not even aware that this is a web page it's dealing 
with (the business logic).

Am I making that more complex that it needs to be?


 Plus, remember about ten or so years ago when there was a lot of
 discussion in the web dev world about page-loading times, and the
 general consensus was that anything that took longer than a few
 seconds to load and render was bad from a usability standpoint?
 Well, now it's a regular occurrence for these JS sites to take much
 more time than that, and then still act sluggish once you're there,
 and that's despite increases in computational power (even for
 low-tech me), despite the fact that we've gone from mostly-dial-up
 to mostly-broadband, despite the *claims* that it's allegedly faster
 (it frequently isn't in actual practice), despite the fact that *we
 knew better* 10+ years ago.
 


 Up front times vs. background times <copy arguments from above :)>
 


 Yes, but from a usability standpoint (especially for the average Joe),
 that distinction doesn't make one bit of difference: It's still a
 delay before being able to deal with the page.
 


Foreground stuff has to load NOW. Background stuff has to load before the 
user gets around to using it. The second deadline can be orders of magnitude 
later than the first. Everything I can see without clicking or scrolling 
should be loaded in the foreground. A lot of the rest can (can!=should) be 
done in the background.

-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 13 2010
prev sibling parent reply Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that presupposes 
 that usable work could be found for any takers.


 
 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site that 
 incessantly nags non-JavaScript users, and forces that OpenID crap, and then 
 start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend site that I want to 
 create but will probably never get around to, and even if I did they'd 
 probably just send their lawyers after me and even if they didn't then 99% 
 of programmers out there would still just bitch about how I'm not enough of 
 a spineless group-think monkey to blindly and excitedly hop onto and 
 fellatiate any and every idiotic tech fad that pops up like all the rest of 
 them are...
 
 But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)
 


Huh, who cares <crap/> about your ready disposition to fly off the 
handle or not about <shit>. I cannot see the relevancy in your answer to 
the OP's post and find it hard to imagine that others would either. 
Sure I'm prepared to be corrected.

As for the OP's suggestion about advertising for dev help not users, 
well that to me is pie in the sky especially given that D-complete is 
not totally open source.  And sure that is Walter's perogative.
Jun 13 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Justin Johansson" <no spam.com> wrote in message 
news:hv2i9l$227r$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that presupposes 
 that usable work could be found for any takers.


 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site that 
 incessantly nags non-JavaScript users, and forces that OpenID crap, and 
 then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend site that I want 
 to create but will probably never get around to, and even if I did they'd 
 probably just send their lawyers after me and even if they didn't then 
 99% of programmers out there would still just bitch about how I'm not 
 enough of a spineless group-think monkey to blindly and excitedly hop 
 onto and fellatiate any and every idiotic tech fad that pops up like all 
 the rest of them are...

 But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)


 Huh, who cares <crap/> about your ready disposition to fly off the handle 
 or not about <shit>. I cannot see the relevancy in your answer to the OP's 
 post and find it hard to imagine that others would either. Sure I'm 
 prepared to be corrected.

 As for the OP's suggestion about advertising for dev help not users, well 
 that to me is pie in the sky especially given that D-complete is not 
 totally open source.  And sure that is Walter's perogative.


Huh? So has Jer/ArnoldSSchwartz/GirlProgrammer resorted to impersonating 
other people now?
Jun 13 2010
parent reply Justin Johansson <no spam.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Justin Johansson" <no spam.com> wrote in message 
 news:hv2i9l$227r$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that presupposes 
 that usable work could be found for any takers.


 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site that 
 incessantly nags non-JavaScript users, and forces that OpenID crap, and 
 then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend site that I want 
 to create but will probably never get around to, and even if I did they'd 
 probably just send their lawyers after me and even if they didn't then 
 99% of programmers out there would still just bitch about how I'm not 
 enough of a spineless group-think monkey to blindly and excitedly hop 
 onto and fellatiate any and every idiotic tech fad that pops up like all 
 the rest of them are...

 But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)






<RETRACTED>

 Huh, who cares <crap/> about your ready disposition to fly off the handle 
 or not about <shit>. I cannot see the relevancy in your answer to the OP's 
 post and find it hard to imagine that others would either. Sure I'm 
 prepared to be corrected.

 As for the OP's suggestion about advertising for dev help not users, well 
 that to me is pie in the sky especially given that D-complete is not 
 totally open source.  And sure that is Walter's perogative.




</RETRACTED>


 Huh? So has Jer/ArnoldSSchwartz/GirlProgrammer resorted to impersonating 
 other people now?
 



Sorry Nick for offending you; I didn't mean to though after a re-read 
this morning I think I could have worded much more politely or better 
still not posted at all.  Please accept my apologies and consider my 
undiplomatic post completely retracted.

Justin
Jun 13 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Justin Johansson" <no spam.com> wrote in message 
news:hv3qq2$1497$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Justin Johansson" <no spam.com> wrote in message 
 news:hv2i9l$227r$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "BCS" <none anon.com> wrote in message 
 news:a6268ff14ed78ccd7c6dbdc2432 news.digitalmars.com...

 http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/06/free-vote-based-advertising-launches-second-round/

 I'm suggesting advertising for dev help not users. But that 
 presupposes that usable work could be found for any takers.


 This is the part where I fly off the handle bitching about any site 
 that incessantly nags non-JavaScript users, and forces that OpenID 
 crap, and then start daydreaming about that StackOverflow-frontend site 
 that I want to create but will probably never get around to, and even 
 if I did they'd probably just send their lawyers after me and even if 
 they didn't then 99% of programmers out there would still just bitch 
 about how I'm not enough of a spineless group-think monkey to blindly 
 and excitedly hop onto and fellatiate any and every idiotic tech fad 
 that pops up like all the rest of them are...

 But you do bring up a very good idea for D publicity :)






 <RETRACTED>

 Huh, who cares <crap/> about your ready disposition to fly off the 
 handle or not about <shit>. I cannot see the relevancy in your answer to 
 the OP's post and find it hard to imagine that others would either. Sure 
 I'm prepared to be corrected.

 As for the OP's suggestion about advertising for dev help not users, 
 well that to me is pie in the sky especially given that D-complete is 
 not totally open source.  And sure that is Walter's perogative.




 </RETRACTED>


 Huh? So has Jer/ArnoldSSchwartz/GirlProgrammer resorted to impersonating 
 other people now?



 Sorry Nick for offending you; I didn't mean to though after a re-read this 
 morning I think I could have worded much more politely or better still not 
 posted at all.  Please accept my apologies and consider my undiplomatic 
 post completely retracted.

 Justin


Oh, don't worry about it. I wasn't offended anyway, I try to have thick skin 
(very helpful for getting maximum benefit out of constructive, and 
not-so-constructive, criticism). Besides, I post bone-headed off-topic 
antagonistic stuff while thinking "Shit, should I have posted that?" all the 
time. Hell, just look at half the stuff I've written elsewhere in this 
thread :)
Jun 13 2010
parent BCS <none anon.com> writes:
Hello Nick,


 Oh, don't worry about it. I wasn't offended anyway, I try to have
 thick skin (very helpful for getting maximum benefit out of
 constructive, and not-so-constructive, criticism). Besides, I post
 bone-headed off-topic antagonistic stuff while thinking "Shit, should
 I have posted that?" all the time. Hell, just look at half the stuff
 I've written elsewhere in this thread :)
 


While we are all going off on a self flagellation spree, I guess I should 
point out that I have a tendency to argue the opposition to any strong
positions 
that I don't hold, particularly when I don't even give a rats a** about the 
topic. I guess I do it to dissect there logic (hopefully, and around here 
usually, but sometime the lack there of) and to understand why the person 
cares at all.

-- 
... <IXOYE><
Jun 13 2010