BCS wrote:
> Reply to Bill,
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daniel Keep <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3].
> [...]
> 
> what I want to known is what happened to that last footnote!

I believe I was going to make a comment to the effect that it's fine to make websites like this for the purposes of learning.

I decided that I was probably going a bit far in attempting to clarify myself.

  -- Daniel

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> lol :)
> 
> Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree, but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like dsource) is slow for me.

The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional alternative, they give you none.

It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.

> You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link is stupid.

Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do that.  They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere.  The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn.

Such spanners were never built.

> But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?

Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in browsers, it's not the language itself.  It's how it's used.  It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience.  I think I enumerated all the big ones previously.

Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help.  They come over, and are really helpful.  But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs.  Then go back to being helpful.

Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is.  Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled.

Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash...

  -- Daniel

"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
>> that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad
>> I
>> was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
>
> What kind of sites do you go that are so bad?  I find things a little annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use.  So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something?  Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?
>

FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :)

Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.658.1233882921.22690.digitalmars-d-announce@puremagic.com...
>>> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
>>> that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad
>>> I
>>> was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
>> What kind of sites do you go that are so bad?  I find things a little annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use.  So I'm wondering if it has to do with the sites you frequent or something?  Or is it just your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?
>>
> 
> FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :)
> 
> Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.

I run AdBlock, NoScript, FlashBlock and Nuke Anything Enchanced.  And if I DO see an ad get through all that, I add the company to my mental "people I will never buy from" list.

I'm an advertiser's worst nightmare.

  -- Daniel

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gmg4av$dqp$1@digitalmars.com...
>
>
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> lol :)
>>
>> Yeah, well, for a directory listing they could have shown the full tree, but if it's too big then it's ugly, and browsing folder by folder (like dsource) is slow for me.
>
> The point is that instead of giving you a sub-optimal but functional alternative, they give you none.
>
> It's like not putting in wheelchair access ramps on the argument that they're inconvenient due to being a longer path than the stairs.
>
>> You are right in that replacing href="" with onclick="" just for a link is stupid.
>
> Not just stupid; there's a whole circle of hell devoted to people who do that.  They sit in endless thirst with water coolers everywhere.  The catch is the taps have been replaced with "low-resistance" jobbies that require a special spanner to turn.
>
> Such spanners were never built.
>
>> But... why Javascript hurts you that much? What did it do to you?
>
> Leaving aside Javascript the language and talking about JS as used in browsers, it's not the language itself.  It's how it's used.  It's the constant needless use of it that breaks the user experience.  I think I enumerated all the big ones previously.
>
> Let's say you're moving house, and ask someone to help.  They come over, and are really helpful.  But every five minutes, they bitch-slap you and kick you between the legs.  Then go back to being helpful.
>
> Eventually, you're going to throw them out no matter HOW helpful they is.  Bad web developers have abused JS so much, so often and for so long, that I've decided it's less stressful to run with JS disabled.
>
> Don't even get me started on sites based entirely on Flash...
>

Oh great, now you've gotten ME started on Flash... ;)

There are a LOT of people (myself included), that will immediately leave a site, never to return, the moment they see that FlashBlocker box taking up 99% of the page. I can sum up all my feelings about Flash (and many, but not all, uses of JS) pretty simply: They are the 2000's version of animating GIFs and blink tags, except it's worse simply because most people don't seem to have actually learned anything from the history of animating GIFs and blink tags.

Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains.

Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP.  Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm))

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> FlashBlock is another one of my essential addons :)
> 
> Let me put it this way: I don't have any sort of documented reading disability (ex, I've always done well on reading comprehension tests). But dispite that, I find it nearly impossible to read anything more than a single trivial sentence whenever there's anything moving, blinking, spinning, a slideshow, etc anywhere near the text (or when there's a voice reading it to me). It's not just annoying, it's a genuine distraction that my mind is simply unable to block out. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, there shouldn't be any moving, spinning, pulsating, animating crap to be blocked out of my mind in the first place.
> 
> 

Whoa.  At some point I realized that I was at peace with the web because my eye balls would automatically repel from all of the pulsating/spinny/blinky crap on the sides of web pages.  So apparently my mind works a bit differently than yours.  My brain must have, at some point, grown entire subnetworks of neurons dedicated to spam blocking. I have come to consciously realize this as well, and become incredibly thankful to it at the same time.  Nick, you have my sympathies.

Unfortunately for me, conceptual distractions are the bane of my
existence.  Really, I should be doing homework right now.  But I'm not.
 I'm doing this instead.

Hello Bill,

>> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I
>> say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web
>> was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
>> 
> What kind of sites do you go that are so bad?  I find things a little
> annoying without FlashBlock, and I have Firefox's default popup
> blocking on, but with those two things, I don't see much of anything
> all *that* annoying in my day-to-day web use.  So I'm wondering if it
> has to do with the sites you frequent or something?  Or is it just
> your threshold for tolerating an ad or two is so much lower than mine?
> 
> --bb
> 


It's not always about the class of sites anymore.  Although naturally, there will be a higher incident of problems among certain types of sites.  The problems are starting to prevalent among many types of sites since these locations, commercial or otherwise, are "pushing" a lot more than they use to.  Many elements (like flash) are not necessarily visible, but still gather "permanent" information on you, and it doesn't seem to matter if you had your cookies disabled or not.


I use noscript with firefox (which also allows control of Java and Flash). I completely agree that the use of JavaScript is pretty evil these days. Even worse is that websites are taking advantage of so many people that are rather ignorant of how to protect themselves.  I have found some sites that are quite surfable without javascript: I'm very impressed when I see this because it says volumes about their good manners and respect for the user.  I must admit that I also get greatly irritated when I come across websites that are inoperable without javascript.  I often will refuse to use them... unless I really must.  Contrary to popular opinion, javascript does not appear to be a dire necessity for a fast, usable website (though, I also admit there are certain good applications for it).


Javascript is one of the worst potential security breeches today /especially/ because of all the websites that force you to keep it enabled.  Unfortunately, most people have become so dependent on it that they can't think of giving it up just to have more privacy and security.   Yet disabling JavaScript remains one of the most highly recommended ways to eliminate a whole spectrum of attacks that regularly can sneek through all your anti-virus and anti-malware software.   And the attacks can come from websites that normally would be harmless because sometimes they get "injected" (I don't know how) with evil Javascript that is just waiting to be run in your browser.


Flash is also a secret horror.  The funny thing is that the blocking of cookies has long been controllable in most browsers, but little is said about flash "local shared objects" that can accomplish the same sort of tracking in a much more hidden medium.  Even worse is that there is much less stricture on these objects (like expiry dates and storage size).  There is a way to limit these LSO's but few people seem to know or think about this being necessary. A simple google search on Flash cookies gives a fair amount on interesting information on this. 


Incidentally Google is another one to keep your eye on; and while I don't want to sound alarmist, I think Google will eventually could turn out to be one of the greatest security/privacy concerns on the web over the next few years.  They have managed to spread their influence everywhere by getting people excited on various ideas, and it's amazing to see that almost every website out there is linked to Google in sort of way or use a "free" Google feature (google analytics for one).  All these "free" services are concerns.  It seems Google is very clever... a little too clever for my liking.


Overall, I think the web is a mess... a dangerous mess, and it's getting worse as fast as people are becoming ignorant: the gap expands even faster in the relative sense.   I'm guessing the security and privacy risk it presents to the public will only get worse as we eat up the freebies, for which most of us have developed a taste from the bountiful supply of the information age.  There's a general apathy that has grown along side it all.


-JJR


PS.  I've found a few good ways to view both outgoing and incoming internet communications. Any sort of port logging is both interesting and educational. A couple good pieces of software to monitor these things are PeerGuardian2 (not only useful for p2p ... just generally useful to see incoming/outgoing traffic) and PortReporter (a Microsoft tool).  Both allow you to see what kind of probes occur over time, including what your computer is doing to communicate with the outside world, perhaps even when you don't intend it to. :P

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Interesting side note: I've noticed that such flash-only pages and sites seem to be by far the most common among musicians and restaurant chains.

Yup; I *hate* looking up tour dates.

> Don't get me started on actual Flash development... (I have the oh-so-wonderful luck of being near the beginning of a large project that, due to client requirements, is built primarily on Flash and PHP.  Whooo boy, am I having fun...(/sarcasm))

lol, enjoy!

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:gmfujj$2t5$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> Daniel Keep escribió:
>>>> "No files in this directory."
>>>>
>>>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>>>
>>>> *unblocks javascript*
>>>>
>>>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
>>>> making their sites break without Javascript...
>>> What? Why?
>>>
>>> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
>> So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I *really* hope you're joking.
>>
>> As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two things
>> you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic positioning and
>> visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make aesthetically pleasing
>> pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.
>>
>> *deep breath*
>>
>> <tirade>
>>
>> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in general.
>> But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily orifice [1] is
>> when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY THAT HTML ALREADY HAS.
>>
>> Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use Javascript in
>> onclick events.  Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke tabs.  Thanks for
>> dictating how I'm allowed to view your site!
>>
>> Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
>>
>>> <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>
>> Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP POST
>> and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit button
>> doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING.
>>
>> This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable.  It's like breaking someone's legs
>> and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!"
>>
>> No, you broke my legs you bastard!
>>
>> What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your
>> browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy" in an
>> article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the content, ads
>> that play music or stream video when I'm on a QUOTA-LIMITED 'net
>> connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your mouse goes anywhere
>> near them or sites that just generally abuse the hell out of scripting,
>> I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with Javascript enabled by default.
>> Frankly, if you build a site that utterly depends on Javascript to
>> function [2], then you're an _idiot_.
>>
>> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But you
>> DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't figure
>> out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages [3].
>>
>> As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who does
>> this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn&  quartered then buried
>> upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a steak through the
>> heart and a silver bullet in the head.  Then burn and salt the earth
>> just to make sure.
>>
>> </tirade>
>>
>> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>>
>> -- Daniel
>>
>> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>>
>> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
>> function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
>> image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
>
> This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of Javascript I
> have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some people, but speaking
> as another person who has done plenty of web development, there is
> absolutely no way to cover this topic *properly* without putting it in such
> terms. If the above rant is overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory.
> There's just no excuse for so many of the things that most web developers
> do.
>
> Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox 3...
> ;)
>
> BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock Plus
> addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here:
> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I say
> that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web was so bad I
> was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely. (I have some other
> addon recommendations too, if you're interested.) In fact, that addon is the
> main reason I use Firefox as my primary browser even though I generally
> dislike Firefox. This addon still doesn't solve all of the problems with JS,
> but it at least changes to web from "completely unusable garbage" (and
> that's no exaggeration) to merely "frequently irritating".

You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites.  I use the 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.

Hello Chris,

> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
>> "Daniel Keep"<daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:gmfujj$2t5$1@digitalmars.com...
>> 
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Daniel Keep escribió:
>>>> 
>>>>> "No files in this directory."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well that sucks.  Oh well, I... hey, wait a second...
>>>>> 
>>>>> *unblocks javascript*
>>>>> 
>>>>> "No files in this directory, but there ARE subdirectories!"
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sometimes, I really wish there was a way to electrocute people for
>>>>> making their sites break without Javascript...
>>>>> 
>>>> What? Why?
>>>> 
>>>> A web like that without Javascript is awfuly slow and ugly...
>>>> 
>>> So... not having a scripting language would make pages run slower.
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> I *really* hope you're joking.
>>> 
>>> As for the "ugly" argument, that's bunk as well.  The only two
>>> things you can't do without Javascript is to perform dynamic
>>> positioning and visibility.  But you don't NEED those to make
>>> aesthetically pleasing pages.  Just go look at CSS Zen Garden.
>>> 
>>> *deep breath*
>>> 
>>> <tirade>
>>> 
>>> I have no problem with having scripting available for pages in
>>> general. But what DOES make me spew LIQUID HATE from every bodily
>>> orifice [1] is when they use Javascript to REPLACE FUNCTIONALITY
>>> THAT HTML ALREADY HAS.
>>> 
>>> Like the sites where instead of using hyperlinks, they use
>>> Javascript in onclick events.  Gee thanks, a**hole, you just broke
>>> tabs.  Thanks for dictating how I'm allowed to view your site!
>>> 
>>> Or the sites where they "inject" the content of the page like this:
>>> 
>>>> <script>document.write("THE PAGE CONTENT");</script>
>>>> 
>>> Or pages where they have forms that go over perfectly ordinary HTTP
>>> POST and use perfectly ordinary form elements... but the submit
>>> button doesn't work BECAUSE IT REQUIRES F**KING SCRIPTING.
>>> 
>>> This sort of bulls**t is inexcusable.  It's like breaking someone's
>>> legs and saying "but now you can use crutches; isn't that great?!"
>>> 
>>> No, you broke my legs you bastard!
>>> 
>>> What's more, thanks to the plague of popup ads, ads that hang your
>>> browser for 5 seconds every time you mouse over the word "synergy"
>>> in an article, ads that show up in the same window but OVER the
>>> content, ads that play music or stream video when I'm on a
>>> QUOTA-LIMITED 'net connection, ads that start TALKING to you if your
>>> mouse goes anywhere near them or sites that just generally abuse the
>>> hell out of scripting, I'm amazed ANYONE browses the web with
>>> Javascript enabled by default. Frankly, if you build a site that
>>> utterly depends on Javascript to function [2], then you're an
>>> _idiot_.
>>> 
>>> You want to use JS to make the site more usable?  That's great!  But
>>> you DO NOT break basic functionality to do it.  EVER.  If you can't
>>> figure out how, you're not qualified to be writing JS for web pages
>>> [3].
>>> 
>>> As someone who used to do web development: anyone, **ANYONE** who
>>> does this should be taken out back, shot, hung, drawn&  quartered
>>> then buried upside-down at a crossroads under a crucifix with a
>>> steak through the heart and a silver bullet in the head.  Then burn
>>> and salt the earth just to make sure.
>>> 
>>> </tirade>
>>> 
>>> Sorry about that, but MAN do I feel better.
>>> 
>>> -- Daniel
>>> 
>>> [1] ... to borrow a phrase from Ben Croshaw.
>>> 
>>> [2] Obviously, this doesn't apply for sites that GENUINELY cannot
>>> function without Javascript.  Stuff like Google Docs or a Javascript
>>> image editor; that stuff is fine because HTML can't do that.
>>> 
>> This is by far the best description/explanation of the evils of
>> Javascript I have ever seen. It might sound a little extreme to some
>> people, but speaking as another person who has done plenty of web
>> development, there is absolutely no way to cover this topic
>> *properly* without putting it in such terms. If the above rant is
>> overly-*anything*, it's overly conciliatory. There's just no excuse
>> for so many of the things that most web developers do.
>> 
>> Now if we can only nudge Daniel to give the same treatment to Firefox
>> 3... ;)
>> 
>> BTW, Daniel, if you're on Firefox, you need to install the Adblock
>> Plus addon and set it up with some of the subscriptions here:
>> http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions  I'm not exaggerating when I
>> say that for a few months before I found that addon, using the web
>> was so bad I was *very* close to abandoning use of the web entirely.
>> (I have some other addon recommendations too, if you're interested.)
>> In fact, that addon is the main reason I use Firefox as my primary
>> browser even though I generally dislike Firefox. This addon still
>> doesn't solve all of the problems with JS, but it at least changes to
>> web from "completely unusable garbage" (and that's no exaggeration)
>> to merely "frequently irritating".
>> 
> You must frequent some fantastically horrible websites.  I use the
> 'net quite frequently, and I don't experience anywhere near enough
> consternation to even consider finding a popup blocker.
> 


Yeah, I don't go to that many websites beyong a usual few.  Firefox's built-in popup blocker has been sufficient for me (and it usually tells me when it has blocked a popup).  It's actually been a long time since I've worried too much about popups.  I /do/ remember the day, though, when popups were a problem, and it was annoying. 


My beef is mostly with JS and Flash which noscript handles quite well.  


-JJR