Public websites are only accessed from localhost, right?



  • I am completely baffled as to how anyone could write this code in an ASP.Net page implementation:

    /*Update controls width as per screen resolution*/
    Screen objScreen = Screen.FromHandle(System.IntPtr.Zero);
    if (objScreen.Bounds.Width > 800)
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 450);
    }
    else
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 400);
    }

    Screen is System.Windows.Forms.Screen; txtRemark is a System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox. So what this code does is to get some screen belonging to the server and then use its size to determine what width to make a textbox which will be displayed in a web browser on a completely different computer.

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window, and why neither of having to add a library that's a wrapper around native UI widgets and having to use handles raised any red flags.



  • @pjt33 said:

    I am completely baffled as to how anyone could write this code in an ASP.Net page implementation:

    /*Update controls width as per screen resolution*/
    Screen objScreen = Screen.FromHandle(System.IntPtr.Zero);
    if (objScreen.Bounds.Width > 800)
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 450);
    }
    else
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 400);
    }

    Screen is System.Windows.Forms.Screen; txtRemark is a System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox. So what this code does is to get some screen belonging to the server and then use its size to determine what width to make a textbox which will be displayed in a web browser on a completely different computer.

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window, and why neither of having to add a library that's a wrapper around native UI widgets and having to use handles raised any red flags.

     

     

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif". 

     



  • What happens if the server has no screen? Does the website crash?



  •  Works fine on my computer. What's the problem?



  • @oheso said:

     Works fine on my computer. What's the problem?

    +1



  • @RichP said:

    @pjt33 said:

    I am completely baffled as to how anyone could write this code in an ASP.Net page implementation:

    /*Update controls width as per screen resolution*/
    Screen objScreen = Screen.FromHandle(System.IntPtr.Zero);
    if (objScreen.Bounds.Width > 800)
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 450);
    }
    else
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 400);
    }

    Screen is System.Windows.Forms.Screen; txtRemark is a System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox. So what this code does is to get some screen belonging to the server and then use its size to determine what width to make a textbox which will be displayed in a web browser on a completely different computer.

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window, and why neither of having to add a library that's a wrapper around native UI widgets and having to use handles raised any red flags.

     

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif". 

    TRWTF is that you didnt have anidiot on YOUR computer!!  or did you ? <ducking and running>



  •  @TheCPUWizard said:

    TRWTF is that you didnt have anidiot on YOUR computer!!  or did you ? <ducking and running>

    My boss always complains about "thatidiot" is logged in again, but every time I check to see who it is, I'm the only one logged in for some reason, so I'm not sure.

     



  • @pjt33 said:

    I am completely baffled as to how anyone could write this code in an ASP.Net page implementation:

    /*Update controls width as per screen resolution*/
    Screen objScreen = Screen.FromHandle(System.IntPtr.Zero);
    if (objScreen.Bounds.Width > 800)
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 450);
    }
    else
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 400);
    }

    Screen is System.Windows.Forms.Screen; txtRemark is a System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox. So what this code does is to get some screen belonging to the server and then use its size to determine what width to make a textbox which will be displayed in a web browser on a completely different computer.

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window, and why neither of having to add a library that's a wrapper around native UI widgets and having to use handles raised any red flags.

    Maybe this is a revolutionary approach called imitation over configuration where the application is using the live specifications of a witness machine (i.e.: the server) instead of relying on abstract artifacts like configuration files or stylesheets.



  • It'll give the users a consistent appearance! And if you decide most of your users are using high-res displays, all you have to do is replace the monitor on your server with a high-resolution one and it'll change for everybody!



  • @pjt33 said:

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window...

    To be a pedantic dickweed, the server can know the client's resolution. I worked on web apps that would update a cookie with the current screen resolution using Javascript. That was used on the server to change widths of tables and forms and so-forth.



  • Is that running in IIS? Does that even work? ISS is a service with no graphical UI, why does it have a "Screen" object? Is he including all of WinForms to get that to work?

    There's a lot of WTFs here.

    Edit: ok I looked it up; yes Screen is part of System.Windows.Forms as you'd expect, meaning that this idiot has built the world's first and only WinForms webpage. Apparently.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Edit: ok I looked it up; yes Screen is part of System.Windows.Forms as you'd expect, meaning that this idiot has built the world's first and only WinForms webpage. Apparently.

    This almost makes me want to write a web-based WinForms designer, just to prove you wrong.



  •  When working on the designer side of creating custom webcontrols its not uncommon to reference System.Windows.Forms.  When a developer plops the control onto a page in visual studio and then goes and updates a collection property for example.  That form comes from System.Windows.Forms.

     As for using in the above mentioned fashion however... Thats just absurd.  I've seen worse though.  I once ran across a webpage with ASM blocks... This is why I am much happier in my DBA role now.  



  •  @blakeyrat said:

    Is that running in IIS? Does that even work? ISS is a service with no graphical UI, why does it have a "Screen" object? Is he including all of WinForms to get that to work?

    There's a lot of WTFs here.

    Edit: ok I looked it up; yes Screen is part of System.Windows.Forms as you'd expect, meaning that this idiot has built the world's first and only WinForms webpage. Apparently.

    And yet, there are some things in System.Windows.Forms like ListBindingHelper that have uses beyond WinForm apps.  Like we would never want to get the property descriptors of the items of a list in anything other than a WinForms app.  I don't know what Microsoft was thinking in that regard.  So yes, I also have server applications that require System.Windows.Forms because I refuse to rewrite some of those helper methods when I can just add in a reference.

    Edit: And for the record, I also think the original developer was retarded by using the local Screen for scaling a webpage.



  • @RichP said:

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif".

    Fuck, I had this shit pulled on me, years ago.

    My (then) team leader was working from home, updating our website content in FrontPage. I got a call from him requesting the FTP credentials for the webserver to upload the new content.

    Yes, I know: TRWTF is me for giving them out without checking. I was in a hurry. I was young. I needed the money. I .. erm..

    .. anyway, to continue: all of his new content pages contained the old "red X" pebbledashed generously. Viewing the source code showed URL paths beginning "Z:\work\gfx"... (I'm guessing he used IE to download and store local copies first, which translated the URL paths.)

    When I pointed the broken images out to him, his reponse was "but it looks fine from here."

    headdeskheaddeskheaddesk



  • @Cassidy said:

    When I pointed the broken images out to him, his reponse was "but it looks fine from here."

    "Oh, cool. We'll just have any potential customers come to your house to view the site on your computer. Problem solved."



  •  @Cassidy said:

    @RichP said:

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif".

    Fuck, I had this shit pulled on me, years ago.

    My (then) team leader was working from home, updating our website content in FrontPage. I got a call from him requesting the FTP credentials for the webserver to upload the new content.

    Yes, I know: TRWTF is me for giving them out without checking. I was in a hurry. I was young. I needed the money. I .. erm..

    .. anyway, to continue: all of his new content pages contained the old "red X" pebbledashed generously. Viewing the source code showed URL paths beginning "Z:\work\gfx"... (I'm guessing he used IE to download and store local copies first, which translated the URL paths.)

    When I pointed the broken images out to him, his reponse was "but it looks fine from here."

    headdeskheaddeskheaddesk

     

    The proper answer in that scenario, of course, is: "ok, wait right there. We have a customer that wants to view our web page, I'll give him directions to your house so he can do so."

     



  •  yeah.. look... this all took place when I was in rageface.gif and not passive-aggressive.mp4.

    I've learned since then.

    And I'm calmer.



  • @RichP said:

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif".

    TRWTF is not having a tool that verifies the integrity of a site on the server.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Edit: ok I looked it up; yes Screen is part of System.Windows.Forms as you'd expect, meaning that this idiot has built the world's first and only WinForms webpage. Apparently.

    Isn't that practically what WebForms is?



  • @Cassidy said:

    updating our website content in FrontPage.
     

    TRWTF is FrontPage. I defy anyone to defend that malicous piece of crap.

     



  • @oheso said:

    @Cassidy said:

    updating our website content in FrontPage.
     

    TRWTF is FrontPage. I defy anyone to defend that malicous piece of crap.

     

    FrontPage was pretty good for managing static content; the HTML it was creating was way better than the weird stuff generated by Word, it was CSS-aware and whenever a page or an image was renamed the entire site was automatically scanned to fix hyperlinks. Also FrontPage could download an entire site quickly, building a sitemap automatically.

    Why don't you name one product that was available at the same period that was better? Duh-reamweaver?



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:


    Why don't you name one product that was available at the same period that was better?

     

    Ha. Someone bit.

    Logical error: A lack of superior alternatives does not imply that the product was not a huge mass of dreck.

    (Note that I'm not agreeing that superior alternatives did not exist. I'm simply pointing out your logical fallacy. You've listed global site updating and automatic sitemap generation, and there were/are any number of alternatives which provide these two facilities.)

    Also, to say that its HTML was superior to Word's is to say that it was only 9 lbs of manure in a 1 lb bag, vs Word's 10 lbs.

     Finally, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a scale by which to objectively qualify the relative merits of the HTML output from those two programs. They're both awful. (To call FrontPage's output CSS-aware is to beg the question.)

     



  • @pjt33 said:

    I am completely baffled as to how anyone could write this code in an ASP.Net page implementation:

    /*Update controls width as per screen resolution*/
    Screen objScreen = Screen.FromHandle(System.IntPtr.Zero);
    if (objScreen.Bounds.Width > 800)
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 450);
    }
    else
    {
        txtRemark.Width = Unit.Pixel(objScreen.Bounds.Width - 400);
    }

    Screen is System.Windows.Forms.Screen; txtRemark is a System.Web.UI.WebControls.TextBox. So what this code does is to get some screen belonging to the server and then use its size to determine what width to make a textbox which will be displayed in a web browser on a completely different computer.

    I wish I could ask the person who wrote this why on Earth they expected the server to know the width of the client's browser window, and why neither of having to add a library that's a wrapper around native UI widgets and having to use handles raised any red flags.

    I think this guy writes requirements for us. Just a few months ago I saw a requirement for a web app that said:
    User will be prevented from closing the web browser while in the middle of <<important task>>.


  • @Jaime said:

    User will be prevented from closing the web browser while in the middle of <<important task>>.
    Ahahahahaha.. oh wow



  • @Jaime said:

    User will be prevented from closing the web browser while in the middle of <<important task>>.

    It's doable. It'll cost you a pretty penny to rent the black helicopters and assault-rifle-toting mercenaries, but it's doable.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Jaime said:
    User will be prevented from closing the web browser while in the middle of <<important task>>.

    It's doable. It'll cost you a pretty penny to rent the black helicopters and assault-rifle-toting mercenaries, but it's doable.

    A far less expensive solution would be to simply close the web browser before beginning <<important task>>.



  • @oheso said:

    Finally, I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a scale by which to objectively qualify the relative merits of the HTML output from those two programs.
    Here, an MS Word web page generated with only "Hello World" on it :@word said:
    <html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
    xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

    <head>
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11">
    <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 11">
    <link rel=File-List href="Hello%20world_fichiers/filelist.xml">
    <title>Hello world</title>
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
     <o:DocumentProperties>
      <o:Author>ANON</o:Author>
      <o:LastAuthor>ANON</o:LastAuthor>
      <o:Revision>1</o:Revision>
      <o:TotalTime>1</o:TotalTime>
      <o:Created>2012-05-22T09:36:00Z</o:Created>
      <o:LastSaved>2012-05-22T09:37:00Z</o:LastSaved>
      <o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
      <o:Words>1</o:Words>
      <o:Characters>11</o:Characters>
      <o:Company>ANON</o:Company>
      <o:Lines>1</o:Lines>
      <o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs>
      <o:CharactersWithSpaces>11</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
      <o:Version>11.5606</o:Version>
     </o:DocumentProperties>
    </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
     <w:WordDocument>
      <w:GrammarState>Clean</w:GrammarState>
      <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone>
      <w:PunctuationKerning/>
      <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
      <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
      <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
      <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
      <w:Compatibility>
       <w:BreakWrappedTables/>
       <w:SnapToGridInCell/>
       <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
       <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
       <w:DontGrowAutofit/>
      </w:Compatibility>
      <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
     </w:WordDocument>
    </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
     <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
     </w:LatentStyles>
    </xml><![endif]-->
    <style>
    <!--
     /* Style Definitions /
     p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {mso-style-parent:"";
        margin:0cm;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";
        mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    @page Section1
        {size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
        margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;
        mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
        mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
        mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
    -->
    </style>
    <!--[if gte mso 10]>
    <style>
     /
    Style Definitions */
     table.MsoNormalTable
        {mso-style-name:"Tableau Normal";
        mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
        mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
        mso-style-noshow:yes;
        mso-style-parent:"";
        mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
        mso-para-margin:0cm;
        mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
        font-size:10.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman";
        mso-ansi-language:#0400;
        mso-fareast-language:#0400;
        mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
    </style>
    <![endif]-->
    </head>

    <body lang=FR style='tab-interval:35.4pt'>

    <div class=Section1>

    <p class=MsoNormal>Hello world</p>

    </div>

    </body>

    </html>
    Who wants to post the FrontPage version ?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I worked on web apps that would update a cookie with the current screen resolution using Javascript. That was used on the server to change widths of tables and forms and so-forth.

    I would consider "Because I have some JavaScript on the client which passes it back to the server" to be a reasonable enough answer, although I'd want to know the fallback strategy for the case when the client has JS blocked.

    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    FrontPage was pretty good for managing static content; the HTML it was creating was way better than the weird stuff generated by Word, it was CSS-aware and whenever a page or an image was renamed the entire site was automatically scanned to fix hyperlinks. Also FrontPage could download an entire site quickly, building a sitemap automatically.

    Why don't you name one product that was available at the same period that was better? Duh-reamweaver?

    Updating references is nice, but for producing HTML Notepad was available then and far better.


  • @pjt33 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I worked on web apps that would update a cookie with the current screen resolution using Javascript. That was used on the server to change widths of tables and forms and so-forth.

    I would consider "Because I have some JavaScript on the client which passes it back to the server" to be a reasonable enough answer, although I'd want to know the fallback strategy for the case when the client has JS blocked.
     

    And not to mention that you'd end up having to make more requests to get that information because none of that will be sent in the initial request made to the server. And cookies are quite often blocked/deleted by software so relying on them to lay out a page is a bit daft.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Is that running in IIS? Does that even work? ISS is a service with no graphical UI, why does it have a "Screen" object? Is he including all of WinForms to get that to work?

    There's a lot of WTFs here.

    Edit: ok I looked it up; yes Screen is part of System.Windows.Forms as you'd expect, meaning that this idiot has built the world's first and only WinForms webpage. Apparently.

    Once, I was debugging a nasty race condition happening on a page with a whole bunch of SQL statements run in sequence. The problem was somewhere in the middle, but I had no idea what, as I was simply usually getting a wrong answer at the end.

    My method of debugging? Inserting calls to System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show() after each statement so I could inspect the database at each step. Granted, this was obviously not production code...



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Once, I was debugging a nasty race condition happening on a page with a whole bunch of SQL statements run in sequence. The problem was somewhere in the middle, but I had no idea what, as I was simply usually getting a wrong answer at the end.

    My method of debugging? Inserting calls to System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show() after each statement so I could inspect the database at each step. Granted, this was obviously not production code...

    And you couldn't use the actual debugger because...? You forgot to mention that part.

    Hell, use the Windows Event Log, that's what it's there for, and it's like 2 lines of code to shove something in it. Edit: Although I guess that wouldn't work unless the bad data showed up in the web app at some point, if it was just in the DB that goes back to the "use the actual debugger".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @pkmnfrk said:

    Once, I was debugging a nasty race condition happening on a page with a whole bunch of SQL statements run in sequence. The problem was somewhere in the middle, but I had no idea what, as I was simply usually getting a wrong answer at the end.

    My method of debugging? Inserting calls to System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show() after each statement so I could inspect the database at each step. Granted, this was obviously not production code...

    And you couldn't use the actual debugger because...? You forgot to mention that part.

    Hell, use the Windows Event Log, that's what it's there for, and it's like 2 lines of code to shove something in it.

    Reasons that I have no control over, like our proprietary framework that doesn't support debugging. Yes, it's as dumb as it sounds.

    However, I will investigate the event log solution. Where do you change the setting to make it pop up and block the program logging the event, so that the user can inspect the database between calls?



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Reasons that I have no control over, like our proprietary framework that doesn't support debugging. Yes, it's as dumb as it sounds.

    You know, if you had mentioned this in your first post, I wouldn't have been thinking, "what kind of fucking retard doesn't just use the debugger? Christ what an idiot" while reading your post. FYI.

    @pkmnfrk said:

    However, I will investigate the event log solution. Where do you change the setting to make it pop up and block the program logging the event, so that the user can inspect the database between calls?

    Sarcasm! That's so great.



  • @pjt33 said:

    ...although I'd want to know the fallback strategy for the case when the client has JS blocked.

    What's the fallback strategy for users who take a big, juicy shit in their DVD drive? Who cares? It's not my place to hold the hands of the 0.1% of people who deliberately cripple their computers.



  • @ASheridan said:

    And not to mention that you'd end up having to make more requests to get that information because none of that will be sent in the initial request made to the server. And cookies are quite often blocked/deleted by software so relying on them to lay out a page is a bit daft.

    I'm not saying doing server-side layout using cookies makes much sense (and this particular app was fucked in the head) but it's pretty trivial to have, you know, a default. So things look okay if there is no cookie info, but if there is we can make things a bit prettier.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    However, I will investigate the event log solution. Where do you change the setting to make it pop up and block the program logging the event, so that the user can inspect the database between calls?

    Easy: use EvntWin to have SNMP traps sent automatically when the event is logged, and have netcat launch PsSuspend when something shows up on port 162 (UDP).



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    What's the fallback strategy for users who take a big, juicy shit in their DVD drive? Who cares? It's not my place to hold the hands of the 0.1% of people who deliberately cripple their computers.

    Yeah, because a blind person using a Braille browser is deliberately crippling their computer. Damn them for not being able to use a 'regular' browser and see like the rest of us, they deserve to be shafted by you and your websites, clearly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @ASheridan said:

    Yeah, because a blind person using a Braille browser is deliberately crippling their computer.



  • @PJH said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Yeah, because a blind person using a Braille browser is deliberately crippling their computer.
     

    It's a genuine concern. I do a lot of work and research into accessibility. It's not so much of a concern over in the states, but here in the UK there's a legal requirement not to discriminate on grounds of disability. Websites can work perfectly well without Javascript, so why build them in such a way that requires it to function? In my opinion Javascript should be used to enhance functionality and give those that can make use of it a better experience.

    At the end of the day, building a site that requires Javascript for basic functionality generally comes down to ignorance or laziness, neither of which are good arguments.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @pkmnfrk said:
    However, I will investigate the event log solution. Where do you change the setting to make it pop up and block the program logging the event, so that the user can inspect the database between calls?

    Easy: use EvntWin to have SNMP traps sent automatically when the event is logged, and have netcat launch PsSuspend when something shows up on port 162 (UDP).

    Ah, perfect! Deploying to production......... now.



  • @toshir0 said:

    Who wants to post the FrontPage version ?
     

    Here, with a css theme to boot.

    @Front Page said:

    <html>

    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us">
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 6.0">
    <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
    <title>template</title>
    <base target="contents">
    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="newstyle.css">
    <!--mstheme--><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="_themes/iris-modified/iris1011.css"><meta name="Microsoft Theme" content="iris-modified 1011, default">
    </head>

    <body>

    <h1 align="center">Hello World</h1>

    </body>

    </html>

     




  • @pkmnfrk said:

    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    @pkmnfrk said:
    However, I will investigate the event log solution. Where do you change the setting to make it pop up and block the program logging the event, so that the user can inspect the database between calls?

    Easy: use EvntWin to have SNMP traps sent automatically when the event is logged, and have netcat launch PsSuspend when something shows up on port 162 (UDP).

    Ah, perfect! Deploying to production......... now.

    I don't know what is more production-ready: this MacGyver debugger designed to work around the fact that you allegedly cannot use a debugger, or your MessageBox-driven approach. In any event if you are debugging in production I think you have a problem worse than no access to a debugger.



  • @RichP said:

    Reminds me of the websites I used to run across in the 90s that had broken image links pointing to things like "C:\Documents and Settings\anidiot\My Web Page\images\calvin_peeing.gif".

    90's? We had a job candidate interview about a month ago that gave us a site like this as a demonstration of his work. It was links instead of images in this case. The site really was supposed to be the best example he had of a public website.

    His "resume" website was even worse. The only reason I never posted here about it is that there is absolutely no way I could anonymize it. I almost don't care about that, though.



  • @ASheridan said:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    What's the fallback strategy for users who take a big, juicy shit in their DVD drive? Who cares? It's not my place to hold the hands of the 0.1% of people who deliberately cripple their computers.

    Yeah, because a blind person using a Braille browser is deliberately crippling their computer. Damn them for not being able to use a 'regular' browser and see like the rest of us, they deserve to be shafted by you and your websites, clearly.

    Ah, but you can just render the page using a headless browser and serve it to the eye-less bastards that way.

    And, yeah, accessibility sucks. The web is a lot different than other media, because apparently the onus is on the content creator. It would be like telling an author they need to write their book a certain way to make it easier for the braille edition. That's moronic. By the same token, screenreaders could execute Javascript; there's no reason to create two separate versions of your site.



  • @ASheridan said:

    It's a genuine concern. I do a lot of work and research into accessibility. It's not so much of a concern over in the states, but here in the UK there's a legal requirement not to discriminate on grounds of disability. Websites can work perfectly well without Javascript, so why build them in such a way that requires it to function? In my opinion Javascript should be used to enhance functionality and give those that can make use of it a better experience.

    At the end of the day, building a site that requires Javascript for basic functionality generally comes down to ignorance or laziness, neither of which are good arguments.

    You are so fucking retarded it hurts. Many screenreaders support Javascript. The fact is, your "enhance using Javascript" comment shows how fucking out-of-touch you are with the world.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ASheridan said:

    It's a genuine concern. I do a lot of work and research into accessibility. It's not so much of a concern over in the states, but here in the UK there's a legal requirement not to discriminate on grounds of disability. Websites can work perfectly well without Javascript, so why build them in such a way that requires it to function? In my opinion Javascript should be used to enhance functionality and give those that can make use of it a better experience.

    At the end of the day, building a site that requires Javascript for basic functionality generally comes down to ignorance or laziness, neither of which are good arguments.

    You are so fucking retarded it hurts. Many screenreaders support Javascript. The fact is, your "enhance using Javascript" comment shows how fucking out-of-touch you are with the world.

    Listen, when Netscape 4.0 dies, then we can concern ourselves with this Javascripty thing. Actually, let's just use Java instead, since it's a well supported technology with no drawbacks!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The web is a lot different than other media, because apparently the onus is on the content creator. It would be like telling an author they need to write their book a certain way to make it easier for the braille edition dyslexics.
    Is that more accurate?



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    The web is a lot different than other media, because apparently the onus is on the content creator. It would be like telling an author they need to write their book a certain way to make it easier for the braille edition dyslexics.
    Is that more accurate?

    Sure. My point is: Javascript doesn't cause accessibility problems and there are technologies out there to make things work for screenreaders. Accessibility doesn't mean making the entire fucking site work without Javascript. This idiotic nonsense has to stop. Javascript is a part of the modern web. People who chime in with the same retarded "But what if you have Javascript disabled?" need to be shot. They may as well be asking "But what if you have HTML disabled?"



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    They may as well be asking "But what if you have HTML disabled?"

    Then you Jam It!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.