New Dojo Site--Most incompetent ever?
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Javascript Toolbox - Table Sort utility - Column Width cannot be set.
Next: FireFoc support forums (Re: FF3.6 Stack output from Too MuchRecursion)
From: Garrett Smith on 11 Mar 2010 02:39 David Mark wrote: > Garrett Smith wrote: >> David Mark wrote: >>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>>> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:42 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> S.T. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2010 1:04 AM, David Mark wrote: >> [...] > I was referring to the Foundation site. Yes I know and I have seen the resizing issue there. There are many sites that are worse, breaking functionality. Pubmed, for example. I love the content but what an awful UI. The web is a mess. I've never seen anything quite > so resolution-challenged. It's like the developer(s) had their browsers > maximized at a relatively high resolution during the entire testing > process (assuming there was a testing process). And the fact that it is > throwing exceptions in brand new browsers (e.g. Opera 10) Firefox 3.5 - "An invalid or illegal string was specified" code: "12" I get that every time I click on a tab header. And in Safari 4 - "Error: SYNTAX_ERR: DOM Exception 12" I don't have the energy to dig through their obfuscated code to find exactly what it is, but it appears to be dom-related. The iframe to try to fix the history has some odd markup: http://www.dojofoundation.org/media/documents/iframe_history.html <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></meta> -- Garrett comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: David Mark on 11 Mar 2010 02:41 Garrett Smith wrote: > David Mark wrote: >> Garrett Smith wrote: >>> David Mark wrote: >>>> Garrett Smith wrote: >>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>>>> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> David Mark wrote: >>>>>>>>> SteveYoungGoogle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mar 10, 5:42 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> S.T. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/8/2010 1:04 AM, David Mark wrote: >>> > [...] > >> I was referring to the Foundation site. > > Yes I know and I have seen the resizing issue there. There are many > sites that are worse, breaking functionality. Pubmed, for example. I > love the content but what an awful UI. That one was pretty much the pits in my book. I've seen some bad sites, but when you've got a single page that reaches for the stars with Ajax-ified sliding of content bits and fails to even allow reading the content, you've got a candidate for worst site in history. Even a basic page with no style, no script, etc. would beat that. Yet, somebody somewhere signed off on that thing as "cool" and would likely have sniffed at doing a basic site with normal navigation. I think most Web developers try to please themselves (and must be extraordinarily easy to please). > > The web is a mess. That's an understatement. And you should see the train wrecks behind most of it. :) > > I've never seen anything quite >> so resolution-challenged. It's like the developer(s) had their browsers >> maximized at a relatively high resolution during the entire testing >> process (assuming there was a testing process). And the fact that it is >> throwing exceptions in brand new browsers (e.g. Opera 10) > > Firefox 3.5 - "An invalid or illegal string was specified" code: "12" Yes and that browser was certainly in widespread use (and was one they asserted to "care" about) at the time that page was created. Makes you wonder what sort of horror show you would get in a browser they don't care about. It simultaneously gives Open Source and the Web black eyes. > > I get that every time I click on a tab header. Yes, you wonder if anybody bothered to test the page at all. Wonder how it will fare in FF4. I haven't even tried it in IE (lately), but I imagine it can be coaxed into throwing errors there as well. > > And in Safari 4 - "Error: SYNTAX_ERR: DOM Exception 12" Now I know that's one browser they "care" about. In fact, it's the only Safari they claim to "support". Makes you wonder how anybody gets sucked into using Dojo to create applications when it is clear the people promoting it are out of their league creating a simple document. > > I don't have the energy to dig through their obfuscated code to find > exactly what it is, but it appears to be dom-related. Yeah, they apparently don't have the energy either. You know I reported these problems a long time ago. > > The iframe to try to fix the history has some odd markup: > http://www.dojofoundation.org/media/documents/iframe_history.html > <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></meta> LOL. The whole idea of using an IFrame to "fix history" so that visitors won't be "inconvenienced" by navigation is ludicrous beyond belief, but such thinking is blasphemy to this bunch. Then I guess when you have 500K pages with 50 http requests, navigation can be a bit sluggish. They've designed themselves into a box and can't punch their way out of it to save their lives (or reputation). IMO, people who think like that belong in rubber rooms, not cubicles (and they sure as hell shouldn't be let near company Websites).
From: Richard Cornford on 11 Mar 2010 07:42 On Mar 10, 7:29 pm, S.T. wrote: > On 3/10/2010 8:17 AM, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >> "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> writes: >>> Validating is a debugging tool - that's it. It's not important >>> if a page "passes" or not. > >> True. What matters is that the page works as expected. >> However, for invalid HTML, the HTML specification doesn't >> say what the HTML means or how it will be parsed. I.e., you >> cannot possibly know whether it will work as expected. That's >> why invalidly nested HTML is bad. > > I worry about what the marketplace has specified, not a W3C > decade-long adventure in producing a "Recommendation" that > sometimes is, sometimes is not followed. <snip> > An unlikely example. I'd agree it's best to avoid Hx tags inside > spans, but objected to a scathing condemnation of Dojo's site > because they had a block inside an inline and had the audacity > to allow CSS to ensure the user sees the intended effect. > Suggesting they swap the absolute positioned span to an absolute > positioned div is fine. Mocking them because they haven't bothered > to was absurd. <snip> It is not as absurd as it may seem. It does directly reflect on Dojo as a scripting project, and on its author's, experience/understanding in relation to DOM scripting. It has long been known that when presented with structurally invalid mark-up the error correction applied by web browsers can result in (sometimes radically) divergent DOM structures (including structures where some elements become the decedents/children of multiple elements (which is not possible in a true tree-like structure such as the DOM is supposed to be). This is very significant for anyone who is trying to create non- trivial DOM scripts (which is presumably something Dojo is attempting to qualify as), and so should be understood by any individual involved in such a task. The result of that understanding is usually an appreciation of the value of using structurally valid mark-up (as represented by the participants in this group[1]), and so observing the use of invalid mark-up implies a failure to understand this point (a shortfall of experience or knowledge). Here is the URL of post of mine from 2005 that included a number of test cases (based on real-world examples from questions asked on this group):- <URL: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/2672da2374ec16c2 > Some of the handling of the test-case code has changed in more modern browsers (showing that error-correction in any given browser is not even stable over time), but it is still the case that you get to see 3 different DOM structures in, say, Firefox, IE and Opera. Richard. [1] There may be obsessive, anal, etc. individuals who insist on the use of valid mark-up because following rules (regardless of any need) makes them feel better, but there are practical, demonstrable and significant consequences of the use of structurally invalid mark-up in relation to DOM scripting. So the motivation for insisting on the use of valid mark-up elsewhere (in other groups, in relation to other fields) may not be entirely valid, but in the context of DOM scripting, at least, the arguments for structural validity in mark-up are substantial. Here, only the ignorant and/or inexperienced (or in VK's case, barking mad) would be happy to see structurally invalid mark-up.
From: David Mark on 11 Mar 2010 12:40 Richard Cornford wrote: > On Mar 10, 7:29 pm, S.T. wrote: >> On 3/10/2010 8:17 AM, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote: >>> "S.T."<a...(a)anon.com> writes: >>>> Validating is a debugging tool - that's it. It's not important >>>> if a page "passes" or not. >>> True. What matters is that the page works as expected. >>> However, for invalid HTML, the HTML specification doesn't >>> say what the HTML means or how it will be parsed. I.e., you >>> cannot possibly know whether it will work as expected. That's >>> why invalidly nested HTML is bad. >> I worry about what the marketplace has specified, not a W3C >> decade-long adventure in producing a "Recommendation" that >> sometimes is, sometimes is not followed. > <snip> >> An unlikely example. I'd agree it's best to avoid Hx tags inside >> spans, but objected to a scathing condemnation of Dojo's site >> because they had a block inside an inline and had the audacity >> to allow CSS to ensure the user sees the intended effect. >> Suggesting they swap the absolute positioned span to an absolute >> positioned div is fine. Mocking them because they haven't bothered >> to was absurd. > <snip> > > It is not as absurd as it may seem. It does directly reflect on Dojo > as a scripting project, and on its author's, experience/understanding > in relation to DOM scripting. Which is virtually nil (still). I was just reading some reviews of their 2007 model. Nothing has changed. If anything, the delusions have become more dramatic. [...] > > This is very significant for anyone who is trying to create non- > trivial DOM scripts (which is presumably something Dojo is attempting > to qualify as), and so should be understood by any individual involved > in such a task. Yes, when the Dojo authors can't create a very basic Website (they've had myriad shots at it over the years) with their own wonder-scripts, anyone with sense must conclude they are barking up the wrong tree (i.e. they should find a new hobby). > The result of that understanding is usually an > appreciation of the value of using structurally valid mark-up (as > represented by the participants in this group[1]), and so observing > the use of invalid mark-up implies a failure to understand this point > (a shortfall of experience or knowledge). As evidenced, they fail to understand even the most basic concepts of sound Web development. Furthermore, they can't seem to grasp abstractions, preferring to demand empirical "proofs" for what should be self-evident propositions. How they figure they can keep rewriting the stupid thing in perpetuity, constantly changing the code to "keep up" with the latest browsers, piling bad code on top of worse and discarding older browsers (and visitors) on whims is beyond my comprehension. It seems like they perversely (almost gleefully) strive to do everything backwards and are quite unwilling to consider contrary points of view. Small wonder the project has gone nowhere, but they seem to cling to the idea that next year could be the one where everyone comes around to see things their way.
From: Dr J R Stockton on 11 Mar 2010 12:48
In comp.lang.javascript message <4b96ea51$0$22113$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.ne t>, Tue, 9 Mar 2010 16:43:58, S.T. <anon(a)anon.com> posted: >Validating is a debugging tool Agreed. It finds three types of bugs : A. Those which you could find by testing & reading the page B. Those which you would not find by testing & reading the page C. Those which no-one will ever be affected by. It is useful for A, very useful for B, and unimportant for C. > - that's it. It's not important if a page "passes" or not. >No doubt there are lengthy arguments about how critical validating is >to the future of humanity, but the real world uses validation for it's >useful purposes and stops there. ALT'ing every single IMG whether >useful or not is a fool's errand. Escaping every ampersand in a URL is >wasted time. After realising that validation is useful for detecting errors, the step which you should take next is to realise that it is much easier to check a validator's output for important errors if the output is not cluttered up by a large number of easily-fixed errors that you are not otherwise bothered by. -- (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links. Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (RFCs 5536/7) Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (RFCs 5536/7) |