i never understood the hate towards frames.
i always thought they were a good improvement. still think they are.
beautiful!
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I am really hating "web 2.0" or whatever its called
- Thread starter PseudoKirby
- Start date
- Status
i never understood the hate towards frames.
i always thought they were a good improvement. still think they are.
beautiful!
I don't think it's a programming language, but whatever. ;-)
I'm not a web dev, but is it THAT much of a clusterfuck for this guy to be given shit for using it even with only a few declarations?
The thing I hate the most is every website is now designed to be a mobile site primarily. I don't browse the internet on my mobile and all it does is hurt my browsing experience on my desktop.
I don't want to stare at a grid of images with 1 lines of text all over my screen. I actually want to see relevant information and lots of it. Let me choose to browse and read what I want to read rather than the 9 things you show me on screen at a time.
I don't want to stare at a grid of images with 1 lines of text all over my screen. I actually want to see relevant information and lots of it. Let me choose to browse and read what I want to read rather than the 9 things you show me on screen at a time.
Twitter is unbearable outside twitterapps. And they are bad enough.
i really don't like that thing where it changes the way scrolling works to have a bunch of different sub sections within a page
its like every startup does this and they all end up looking almost identical. also the thing of saying 'made with love in ...' to try and humanise everything to make their products look friendlier. its so lazy and cookie cutter safe moist that it just makes them look bad.
its like every startup does this and they all end up looking almost identical. also the thing of saying 'made with love in ...' to try and humanise everything to make their products look friendlier. its so lazy and cookie cutter safe moist that it just makes them look bad.
terrisus
Member
Yeah, I had a guestbook there up until around 1999. I remember it was hosted on phaistos.forthright.net, which was based out of Crete, which I always thought was kind of nifty.
But, yes, you can always email me, and I might get back to it eventually.
(I'm horrible about getting back to mail. I have mail as far back as 2007 I kept meaning to get back to and never did >.>)
I'm just not much a fan of "Action RPGs" :þ
Of course!
Code:
[IMG]http://www.terrisus.com/pictures/aolwelcome.jpg[/IMG]Had the same email address since like 1998!
And, while I obviously have my own domain that I could do mail through, or any number of other choices for email providers...
It's mainly just that I'm too darn lazy to change everything over to a new email address :þ
ClosingADoor
Member
Bigger screens for desktop made it possible. Back then you had 800x600 screens, now most have 1920x1080 or for laptops at least 1366x720. On mobile those sections are hidden mostly.
I don't see much wrong with it.
Responsive.
terrisus
Member
Things break when someone is using anything other than the default 100% zoom.
This is on a desktop, 27" screen, 1920x1080 resolution:
"responsive"
What part is broken?
Jill Sandwich
the turds of Optimus Prime
Not dead enough.
terrisus
Member
The "visibility" and "usability" parts of it >.>
thesoapster
Member
I think JavaScript popups annoy me the most. You know...the "cutout" style where the rest of the page goes dark/out of focus and you have some box pop up in the center of the screen that you have to do something about. Horrible. I think I used some Chrome extension at some point that got rid of them but it also fucked up Gmail/Inbox or something so I had to turn it off.
MrCunningham
Member
Web 2.0.1
That's not available in English yet.
Shao Kahn on the Lawn
Member
Sounds like a lot of you need to learn how to use both Google, Ctrl + F, and tabbed browsing.
A shit design is a shit design, responsive or not. MSNBC similarly ruined their layout.
Things break when someone is using anything other than the default 100% zoom.
This is on a desktop, 27" screen, 1920x1080 resolution:
"responsive"
A shit design is a shit design, responsive or not. MSNBC similarly ruined their layout.
MikeHaggar
Member
Things break when someone is using anything other than the default 100% zoom.
This is on a desktop, 27" screen, 1920x1080 resolution:
"responsive"
that must be a poor implementation of it. i'm a web dev and have been using bootstrap.css for a while now. i've found that it handles responsiveness quite well--from a 1080p monitor down to an iphone 4. in fact, i really like it. it makes my job much easier since i'm doing both back-end and front-end development (although i consider myself a back-end developer. my current job just requires me to handle both).
yeah, i agree with this. i'm not a huge fan of javascript and avoid it at all costs. a lot of the devs i work with seem to view it as their "go to" solution. have a tricky problem to solve and not sure how to do it? just do it in javascript! we build web-based business apps, so they end up creating these gigantic forms with tons of js running on them and then wonder why the application performs poorly on certain machines... generally machines that then end user already has a bunch of junk installed on which is constantly eating up resources. i'm probably in the minority on this, but i just don't like using it.
Things break when someone is using anything other than the default 100% zoom.
This is on a desktop, 27" screen, 1920x1080 resolution:
"responsive"
What browser are you using because that doesn't happen for me.
terrisus
Member
Well, there certainly are a whole bunch of "shit designs" these days then >.>
One of the other common issues is the fact that I'm using Opera 12.17 :þ
But, in general, between that, and browsing at 140% zoom, I'm used to things not working particularly well for me >.>
Here's a current picture (taken right now) of ESPN's MLB section for me:
Code:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zHbOiZR.jpg[/IMG]It's a bit better now - that was taken when their redesign launched. But, it's still fairly unusable.
Opera 12.17, 140% zoom.
terrisus
Member
At 140% zoom, you're pretty much asking for trouble. I know that shouldn't be the case but this isn't a perfect world we live in. Most websites will break at some point using a zoom level other than 100%.
I love it when this happens, because I can feel super-geeky by using Firebug to disable the overlay, and laugh at their pathetic attempts to have me sign up.
terrisus
Member
Well, considering my horrible vision as a result of my stroke, I don't really have much other option..
After my stroke I had been around 170% zoom. So, this is an improvement at least.
But, in general, websites are not created around anyone who does not meet the typical expectations. Not very accessible or "responsive."
Ironically, the best type of websites for dealing with the sort of thing are the older websites without any fancy stuff on them.
And, it's sad that "the world we live in" is one where we have more tools to be more accessible to people with special needs, but things are designed in a way such that they are not accessible to people with those needs.
Reminds me of the redesigns one of my news sites got where on mobile, you could not load an article in a new tab. If you tried to hold your finger to select "open in new tab", it would just register it as a tap and open the article in the same page. Took them 12 months to finally fix.
Fuck responsive design in 90% of the cases.
Fuck responsive design in 90% of the cases.
There was no such backlash that I remember.
The reason frames went away has two reasons, one had to do with the rise of Google. They indexed the frames and you'd get links that took people to one of your frames, instead of the entire website, which was a pain in the ass. Aside from that, there was the rise of dynamic web pages in ASP and PHP, that allowed you to make general headers, footers and menus and include them into another page without using frames like you had to when you only had HTML at your disposal.
God Dayumm
Banned
"Responsive" web design
Dictator93
Member
I made a thread about this awhile back. Yes, scroll based website layouts are very annoying.
So is the emphasis on pictures and large text.
So is the emphasis on pictures and large text.
shiftplusone
Member
Spoilers it's tumblr nothing is important
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
bad perl and javascript.
God Dayumm
Banned
CSS really does have bad scoping compared to all other declarative and programming languages there exist. It needs use of an !important keyword to give you an idea. But it is still very useful as a styling language, it just sucks as a layout language.
If I'm returning frequently to a certain tumblr, I obviously want to see the latest rather than the results of some unknown prioritization algorithm.
terrisus
Member
If only there were a way for a person to choose different sorting options depending on what they wanted...
Removing frames was a big part of web 2.0. There were some thoughtfully designed frames but there was a lot of abuse with some sites having 3 or 4 different frames. When connection got good enough that it didn't take minutes to load a site common design language across websites (really what web x.0 is) removed them.
They are back in a lot of ways notably hamburger menus as hierarchical sites come back into vogue instead of reddit/digg/blog style where there was no secondary or higher grouping of pages. (E.g reddit.com/r/politics/ukpolitics/labour)
It is interesting to see how responsive websites are now grouping content. Vox sites have hubs, gawker has rolled out subsites etc. In web2.0 most sites relied onbtqgging which they were never diligent about.
You're correct however I would disagree that the way "old style" websites are written is what makes them scale better. That probably speaks more to the way browsers do their zooming than it does the way the sites are built.
Responsive sites, particularly those that use percentages, should technically scale better at alternative zoom levels. Fonts in particular should remain relative to each other (on the same site) and the layout should change appropriately to accommodate the larger elements and typefaces versus non-responsive sites.
However, nobody is perfect, and most sites don't adhear to consistent responsive design principles. They will mix percentage sized elements with pixel sized. Furthermore, if you set your browser's zoom level to make a certain website to look good, another's can use larger fonts or bigger elements which will look terrible. This is likely what was occurring with your original CNN example.
Shit like "infinite scrolling" or other wacky UI tricks that fly in the face of the very nature of expected browser behavior are likely to break even more at higher zoom levels because these use a lot of Javascript to calculate viewport, element visibility, etc. and are tuned for the average 100% zoom level experience.
I told a print design colleague of mine some of these issues the other day and they replied back that they were grateful they don't have to deal with any of this. Throughout my career I've noticed that it's easy for people to write off web design/development as some simple, turn key solution that is somehow inferior or easier to print layout/design. While I won't say it's harder, I would have to say it likely comes with much, much more uncertainty.
terrisus
Member
That would make sense, wouldn't it?
I wouldn't say it's a matter of being "perfect."
Moreso of just being aware that not everyone is at the default settings, and to give at least some consideration to that. It doesn't have to be "perfect" - just not a terrible mess.
It's just incredibly ironic to me that something called "responsive design" is often so completely unresponsive
It's not even just that they're "tuned for the average 100% zoom level experience," but that they often completely fall apart when not at that.
There's a difference between being "untuned/unoptimized" and "completely unconsidered, and a total mess."
Am I getting this right? The site is broken because things are big when zoomed in?
terrisus
Member
The site is broken because things are not 40% bigger when zoomed in 40% more.
And the site is broken because certain things zoom in a higher percentage than other things do.
And the site is broken because certain elements are unnecessarily unreadable or inaccessible.
I wouldn't think these things needed to be spelled out, but there you go.
The Albatross
Member
Yes, what you just described is web 2.3
"So what's this shit called"
Mostly you're describing things that aren't related, but at least one of your complaints is called 'infinite scroll' combined with 'lazy loading.' I generally don't like infinite scrolling because I believe that it has more negative consequences than positive ones for the user. I also hate when parallax is used as a content-delivery method, e.g., hijacking the scroll functionality not to scroll through a document, but instead to deliver content at a different rate or with different effects. I legitimately hate this, both as a developer and a user.
Lazy loading is an effective way to deliver content and generally conserve bandwidth, but it also has UX consequences that could be more negative than positive.
"So what's this shit called"
Mostly you're describing things that aren't related, but at least one of your complaints is called 'infinite scroll' combined with 'lazy loading.' I generally don't like infinite scrolling because I believe that it has more negative consequences than positive ones for the user. I also hate when parallax is used as a content-delivery method, e.g., hijacking the scroll functionality not to scroll through a document, but instead to deliver content at a different rate or with different effects. I legitimately hate this, both as a developer and a user.
Lazy loading is an effective way to deliver content and generally conserve bandwidth, but it also has UX consequences that could be more negative than positive.
Messofanego
Banned
Is this what edging is like?
terrisus
Member
Easier to just say bad JS. Can't really fault a server side language that only powers 0.5% of all websites
Diprosalic
Banned
websites optimised for tables are fucking garbage. all these huge buttons and navigation bars so our fat fingers can touch them.
so many of them now.
that's not Al Gore.
so many of them now.
that's not Al Gore.
i can browse gaf perfectly fine at 220% zoom. websites should leave the user the choice to browse the site in whatever way they want.
high five for still using opera (the real opera). now go and install vivaldi
As someone that is learning programming langauges: HAHAHAHA. No it isn't.
CSS is pretty much a walk in the park compared to the Hill Climb that is Javascript and then the Mount Everest Summit Climb that is C/C++.
It's not moving! You sir, are a fraud!
- Status