Message: previous - next
Month: December 2011

Re: [trinity-devel] Trinity logo?

From: Darrell Anderson <humanreadable@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:30:13 -0800 (PST)
> Wrong wrong wrong. Cookies are great when used to store
> information I wanted stored, like preferences or to stay
> logged into a website, tracking cookies are obviously bad
> however.

Let me rephrase. When a web site refuses to load because cookies are not enabled, then the web site designer is playing the role of a fool. I came across such a site today (Sears), researching a product. Because I use a white list approach for cookies, I do not have cookies enabled globally. All I received from the web site was a message that I did not have cookies enabled. No product information. I closed the page and moved on. I'm not dealing with idiots like that.

Cookies are fine when the END-USER finds them useful. When cookies are required to merely use a web site (like etherpad) then there is something inherently wrong with the design.

The same goes for JavaScript. For example, visit the Asus downloads site. No meaningful function at all unless JavaScript is enabled. The Amazon web site is another example in that viewing alternate images is not possible without JavaScript. That's not good design.

> Javascript is not a issue for bandwidth, it won't
> present an issue since it is interpreted locally. The only
> functionality I am suggesting not exist is a commenting
> system - which is non-essential.

JavaScript IS a bandwidth issue. Try surfing the web all day on dial-up.

Although today I have a broadband connection, the connection is not high-end or robust. I still very much experience the overhead of all the web 2.0 nonsense.

And what is wrong with a simple forms-based comment section, much like we saw in the pre Web 2.0 days? Nothing wrong. People get mad when they configure a JavaScript white list in their browser and visit a site where they have to temporarily enable JavaScript.

> Scripts are just small text files, overhead is as minimal
> as the already existing CSS files. (or do you have that
> disabled too?) Javascript is 15+ years old. Stop being
> absurd! Are you running machines that are pre-pentium 1? Of
> course we won't be rendering WebGL 3D frames, we'll
> be using very simplistic javascript to achieve a minimal
> end. In fact most websites these days depend on it.

I'm being realistic. We have two different perspectives. I was using computers back before there were BBSs. Back when there was no world wide web. All we had were modems. I remember when sites had to be designed to be efficient, which seldom happens anymore. Until a few years ago I had to survive on dial-up. I have not forgotten those days and I will not forget people still using dial-up or low broadband connections.

I see TDE as being a good desktop for people using older hardware. People using older hardware are unlikely to have fast connectivitiy.

That you allege many web sites today depend upon JavaScript is about the same as saying everybody else is jumping off the cliff so let's do that too. I never have been much of a "jump on the bandwagon" person. :)

> I concur with this as well. I think we
> need to work on our top display bar, other than that the
> website works well. It renders well in a 640x640 window

My recommendations included a simpler nav bar.

> Contributions appreciated, as the old arch saying goes
> "patches are welcome!" or "put up or shut
> up" applies as well.

I'm feeling feisty today. So my contributions with this topic are rocks thrown hard. I have no patience for this web 2.0 crap. :)