Public websites are only accessed from localhost, right?



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    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!
     

    "Instead"? That doesn't work in this context. You can only use "instead" when you are talking about dissimilar things. Here you're talking about Java/script. Like, dood, I told you, I want those Java rollovers on the site pronto!

     



  • @ASheridan said:

    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.

    Mibbit uses javascript for basic functionality. Any attempt to get the same functionality with pure HTML would likely require a hell of a lot more bandwidth, be slower, and a complete WTF.
    There, three good arguments in favour of javascript.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    The web is a lot different than other media, because apparently the onus is on the content creator.
     

    This is false.

    I am not a content creator for pretty much every single website I make.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    It would be like telling an author they need to write their book a certain way to make it easier for the braille edition.

    This too, is false.

    It is like telling the book producer to ensure a version is available in braille. It's more expensive, but not moronic.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Many screenreaders support Javascript.
    Many ≠ all, ergo some people out there are still not able to access the website.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The fact is, your "enhance using Javascript" comment shows how fucking out-of-touch you are with the world.
    That's not out of touch,it's realistic. There are some things that can't be done without Javascript, I never said there weren't though. Fact is, the majority of sites out there that don't work without Javascript enabled have no fucking reason to whatever, it's just laziness and ignorance of the devs.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @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?"

     

    I didn't say that the whole site needed to work without Javascript, in-fact I specifically said that Javascript shouldn't be used for basic functionality, but you read what you wanted as usual.

    I'm talking about stupid shit like simple forms not working without Javascript, just because the idiot who built it didn't have a clue what they were doing and thought JQuery was the most amazing thing ever. I'm talking about sites that pull in every bit of their content with Ajax for no reason other than they just think that's a good idea. I'm talking about the idiots who shove onclick event handlers onto everything to make it act like a link.

    I'm pretty sure you're not as fucking stupid as you quite often make out, but I'm telling you, you're not doing anything to reassure me that you're not a complete moron.



  • I'm building a site that's primarily bar and pie charts. Right now they're drawn to the screen using HTML5 after the data is retrieved from a web service using xmlHttpRequest.

    How do I make it accesible? Maybe I could provide a tabular alternate to the page, but I have no way of retrieving the data without JavaScript unless I fudge the requirements and build a web server app.



  •  Tabular data is accessible so you're on the right lines. The WAI suggests in cases where it's not plausible to make something like that accessible then link to an alternate version that is accessible. What you're describing sounds like something that is a bit beyond basic functionality, so relying on Javascript would be warranted. As I mentioned, my gripe is with the type of idiots I outlined above.



  • @ASheridan said:

    What you're describing sounds like something that is a bit beyond basic functionality,

    The entire purpose of this site is to query a web API and display charts and graphs from the resulting data. So... that is the basic functionality.



  • @dhromed said:

    I am not a content creator for pretty much every single website I make.

    Fine, content distributor or whatever.

    @dhromed said:

    It is like telling the book producer to ensure a version is available in braille. It's more expensive, but not moronic.

    That's why boomzilla's correction was better--it's like telling them to rewrite the content so it's easier for dyslexics to read.

    Anyway, the core point is that Javascript can work fine with a screenreader and this "Make it work in Lynx" mentality is dumb.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Many ≠ all, ergo some people out there are still not able to access the website.

    Then they can upgrade their fucking screenreader. Jesus Christ, do you still code websites for Netscape 4 you mindless cretin?

    @ASheridan said:

    Fact is, the majority of sites out there that don't work without Javascript enabled have no fucking reason to whatever, it's just laziness and ignorance of the devs.

    Or, more likely, that people without Javascript are neo-Luddite assholes and I don't give a shit if they can use my software or not.



  • @ASheridan said:

    I'm talking about stupid shit like simple forms not working without Javascript, just because the idiot who built it didn't have a clue what they were doing and thought JQuery was the most amazing thing ever.

    Really, so you don't do any kind of client-side form validation?

    @ASheridan said:

    I'm talking about sites that pull in every bit of their content with Ajax for no reason other than they just think that's a good idea.

    It often is a good idea. And as an added bonus, it pisses off neo-Luddites like you.

    @ASheridan said:

    I'm talking about the idiots who shove onclick event handlers onto everything to make it act like a link.

    Yeah, that is dumb, but also a straw man. Nobody advocated this, it just came from your damaged little mind.



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    @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>
    

     


    And if you save as FILTERED HTML from word you get this:

    <html>

    <head>
    <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
    <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered)">
    <style>
    <!--
     /* Font Definitions */
     @font-face
     {font-family:"Cambria Math";
     panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
    @font-face
     {font-family:Calibri;
     panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
     /* Style Definitions */
     p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
     {margin-top:0in;
     margin-right:0in;
     margin-bottom:10.0pt;
     margin-left:0in;
     line-height:115%;
     font-size:11.0pt;
     font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
    .MsoPapDefault
     {margin-bottom:10.0pt;
     line-height:115%;}
    @page WordSection1
     {size:8.5in 11.0in;
     margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
    div.WordSection1
     {page:WordSection1;}
    -->
    </style>

    </head>

    <body lang=EN-US>

    <div class=WordSection1>

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

    </div>

    </body>

    </html>



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Fact is, the majority of sites out there that don't work without Javascript enabled have no fucking reason to whatever, it's just laziness and ignorance of the devs.

    Or, more likely, that people without Javascript are neo-Luddite assholes and I don't give a shit if they can use my software or not.

    I'm with ASheridan on this one - a percentage of sites that require Javascript to work require it unnecessarily. This site has documented many examples, for instance:

    • image-flipping and dynamic menus that could have been constructed in CSS
    • binding an onSubmit event to an image link rather than use a standard submit button, etc.
    that kinda shit. Hell, even our company webshite used JS to do drop-down menus without any graceful degradation.



  • @Cassidy said:

    image-flipping and dynamic menus that could have been constructed in CSS
    Problem with pure CSS menus is that they close or switch to another menu if you don't move your mouse carefully enough. Some javascript menus get this right (though there's a ton of javascript menus that don't).



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @ASheridan said:
    Fact is, the majority of sites out there that don't work without Javascript enabled have no fucking reason to whatever, it's just laziness and ignorance of the devs.

    Or, more likely, that people without Javascript are neo-Luddite assholes and I don't give a shit if they can use my software or not.

    I'm with ASheridan on this one - a percentage of sites that require Javascript to work require it unnecessarily. This site has documented many examples, for instance:

    • image-flipping and dynamic menus that could have been constructed in CSS
    • binding an onSubmit event to an image link rather than use a standard submit button, etc.
    that kinda shit. Hell, even our company webshite used JS to do drop-down menus without any graceful degradation.

    Goalpost moving. I never said there aren't stupid uses for Javascript, I said that disabling Javascript is stupid. ASheridan is arguing that sites should basically work without Javascript, which I don't agree with; that means that, hey, I can't pull in information using AJAX to render a new view. Fuck that.



  • @ender said:

    @Cassidy said:
    image-flipping and dynamic menus that could have been constructed in CSS
    Problem with pure CSS menus is that they close or switch to another menu if you don't move your mouse carefully enough. Some javascript menus get this right (though there's a ton of javascript menus that don't).

    Absolutely. There are other problems building menus in CSS entirely, but they relate more to web apps than web sites.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ASheridan said:
    What you're describing sounds like something that is a bit beyond basic functionality,

    The entire purpose of this site is to query a web API and display charts and graphs from the resulting data. So... that is the basic functionality.

    Then just create an entirely separate version of your site that renders server-side. Duplicating logic all over the place isn't a WTF, right? (Or you could even write your backend in node.js and reuse the same JS libraries for the AJAX and non-AJAX versions! Totally not a WTF!)

    Or you could just use XHR because there are screen readers that support it (most do now). There used to be a problem with non-interactive updates (e.g., a change to the DOM kicked off by a timeout rather than user action) but IIRC JAWS works with that now (Window Eyes might, too). And of course there are out-of-date readers which don't work with modern technology, but the solution is to update the client, not continue to re-engineer your entire site because people are still using NN4 or an ancient reader.

    I'm not saying accessibility is a crock, just that it has little to do with Javascript. You can make shitty, non-reader friendly HTML completely server-side. And you can make semantically correct, reader-friendly HTML client-side.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm not saying accessibility is a crock, just that it has little to do with Javascript. You can make shitty, non-reader friendly HTML completely server-side. And you can make semantically correct, reader-friendly HTML client-side.

    Accessibility is a total crock. All of my sites are full screen size bmps rendered serverside and passed to the client. It can be a little slow sometimes, but I never have to worry about bullshit CSS implementations or weird screen resolutions.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    I'm not saying accessibility is a crock, just that it has little to do with Javascript. You can make shitty, non-reader friendly HTML completely server-side. And you can make semantically correct, reader-friendly HTML client-side.

    Accessibility is a total crock. All of my sites are full screen size bmps rendered serverside and passed to the client. It can be a little slow sometimes, but I never have to worry about bullshit CSS implementations or weird screen resolutions.

    How do you know they're full screen without knowing the client's resolution? The solution is to serve your site entirely as audio files. Blind people can see audio files, right?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Goalpost moving. I never said there aren't stupid uses for Javascript, I said that disabling Javascript is stupid.

    Fairy snuff; I came into the game too late.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Blind people can see audio files, right?

    Only if they're subtitled.

    No, Karoke doesn't count.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Fairy snuff

    That part where they decapitated Tinkerbell was pretty hot.



  • The very first website the school I netadmin ever had was built by one of the teachers, who had no previous web creation experience whatsoever but had had a few hours of something passing as "training" from some random FrontPage fanboi from head office.

    It was nothing fancy - a handful of static pages with a sidebar menu - but it looked kind of OK, until the day I got sick of playing whack-a-mole with malware and cut the whole school over from IE to Firefox. Then it looked like arse - horribly jaggy text and blurry, pixelated images.

    The source of the affected pages looked like approximately 90% HTML noise and 10% content, and having had no previous experience with FrontPage output it took me quite a while to work out what was actually going on. And then I simply refused to believe it for a good fifteen minutes. But I eventually had to accept that what this shitheel of a tool had done was use IE conditional comments to make sure that IE was the only browser that saw actual HTML for the page content. In any other browser, what you got instead was a (poorly) pre-rendered GIF of the entire page.

    Worked much better after I stripped out all the FrontPage bullshit by hand and showed the author how to maintain it with Nvu.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @ASheridan said:
    What you're describing sounds like something that is a bit beyond basic functionality,

    The entire purpose of this site is to query a web API and display charts and graphs from the resulting data. So... that is the basic functionality.

    You're misconstruing my meaning of basic functionality. I meant basic as in form submission, links, the key blocks of HTML, all of which I've seen performed in Javascript for one reason or another.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Then they can upgrade their fucking screenreader. Jesus Christ, do you still code websites for Netscape 4 you mindless cretin?

     Thank you, I now realise what the difference is between apples and oranges, dumbass.




  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Really, so you don't do any kind of client-side form validation?
    Client-side validation should always be accompanied by a server-side equivalent, you know that. This might be a hard concept for you to grasp, but if Javascript is disabled then client-side validation won't happen, but the server-based stuff still will. So the world won't implode, everything will carry on as normal. You're a dumbass for even bringing that point up as if it were valid.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    It often is a good idea. And as an added bonus, it pisses off neo-Luddites like you.
    Right, I'm possibly then the worlds first neo-luddite programmer. Seriously, if you're going to throw around petty insults, at least make sure you know the meaning of the word, elsewise you look like a fool that has just learnt a new word but the meaning of which was lost in translation en route from your ears to your brain.

     

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Yeah, that is dumb, but also a straw man. Nobody advocated this, it just came from your damaged little mind.

    Less of a straw man than your crap about form validation. I didn't say anyone here was advocating it (even as stupid as you seem to appear, I don't think you've quite degenerated down to that level of moron-esque behaviour) but that I've seen it before by people who either didn't care or didn't know. That was my argument and my examples were supplementary to that point.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Goalpost moving. I never said there aren't stupid uses for Javascript, I said that disabling Javascript is stupid. ASheridan is arguing that sites should basically work without Javascript, which I don't agree with; that means that, hey, I can't pull in information using AJAX to render a new view. Fuck that.

     The goalpost never moved. I was arguing for the cases not where Javascript wasn't enabled, but where it wasn't actually available. You know that, I know that, yet you still attempt to veer off in a different direction. If anyone is attempting to move a goalpost, it's you.

    I don't wish this on you, but statistically speaking one day either you or someone near you will probably be suffering from some sort of severe disability, and then you will see where my argument was coming from.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Then just create an entirely separate version of your site that renders server-side. Duplicating logic all over the place isn't a WTF, right?
    Nice strawman. Who here isn't familiar with MVC or something similar? If you're in the position where you have to duplicate logic just for a different view, then you've got bigger problems.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm not saying accessibility is a crock, just that it has little to do with Javascript. You can make shitty, non-reader friendly HTML completely server-side. And you can make semantically correct, reader-friendly HTML client-side.
     

    Are you seriously saying that HTML created on the server is not reader friendly? I've read and re-read that statement, and that's the only meaning I can infer from it.



  • @ASheridan said:

    Are you seriously saying that HTML created on the server is not reader friendly? I've read and re-read that statement, and that's the only meaning I can infer from it.

    Response.Write("<img src=\"allcontent.png\" alt=\"\" />"); //output the body text.
    


  • @ASheridan said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Then just create an entirely separate version of your site that renders server-side. Duplicating logic all over the place isn't a WTF, right?
    Nice strawman. Who here isn't familiar with MVC or something similar? If you're in the position where you have to duplicate logic just for a different view, then you've got bigger problems.

    I'm sorry, I just noticed this part.

    Are you daft? This is not duplicating server-side logic, this is writing your logic twice - Once in your server-side language of choice, and once in Javascript. That is absolute bullshit.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    Are you daft? This is not duplicating server-side logic, this is writing your logic twice - Once in your server-side language of choice, and once in Javascript. That is absolute bullshit.
     

    Not really. Blakeyrat's example is great for this. He's got graphs created with Javascript, and suggested tabular data as the accessible alternative. You're not writing anything twice, you've got two different presentations of it. That's what views are for!


Log in to reply