Lack of HTML craftsmanship leading to inaccessibility?

This is a humorous statement to me...
I *suppose* if you are on a METERED data plan and you exceed the limit you are allowed and your provider cuts you off you could run in to problems viewing web sites with HUGE javascript libraries................... However, odds are those individuals exceeded their data not by viewing web sites with javascript libraries but by watching movies, youtube videos, and social media content etc.
This should hardly be a concern of anyone. Most americans have access to very GOOD major providers with extensive burstable data plans (it's america....). However, for the minority that are using prepaid phones with very low data plans they really need to be more concerned about videos and pictures than javascript.

 

Overall the majority of America is still in the dark ages when it comes to internet plans -- wired or wireless. Large swaths of this nation have places where 56k dialup is STILL a good day. See most of the Cakota's, Utah, Northern New Hampshire/Vermont, western Maine, etc, etc.

Where I am, sure I get 45m/3m wired (damn that upstream is a joke) at $70/mo... that's the CHEAP plan. But cell service? We barely have 4g coverage that is worth paying for. (no, it's so spotty it really isn't) and if you want a RELIABLE connection here, you're stuck using GSM.

Which is why if you're not near your own wireless router you ain't doing DICK for mobile in terms of Internet use.

Compare that to our -- ridiculously privileged and lucky -- friends in Europe, and the US might as well be a third world nation... Kind of like when it comes to paying for health care. But people in Florida, the Chicagoland area, or lower New York, or within 30 miles of any major metro are generally unaware of this.

You'd almost think the providers went full "credit mentality" to the point they're still paying so much to pay off the copper, they can't even afford to lay fiber down.

Thing is, not when the bloated markup, bloated CSS, and bloated scripttardery add up to being larger than most 720p 5 minute webm's.

Like CNN's ridiculously 3i website. I mean FFS, 700k of CSS static in the markup? Needing to be served on EVERY page of the site or on every revisit/content update? /FAIL/ hard. It's so screwed up it may never be right again!

 

You're talking about a minority of people. The majority of places in america have great coverage. It may be a bit different in the sticks of Utah and Vermont but that's not where the majority of people live.

You must be talking from experience in YOUR area and not America as a whole like the original quote.
I have been to 45 out of 50 states and most of those multiple times. I travel every single week. My work phone is AT&T and my personal phone is Verizon. For the most part the coverage is VERY good. The areas where both phones drop coverage are in areas that are very VERY remote like most countries coverage.

That has not been my experience visiting Europe. I actually don't notice much of a difference.

 

All fine and dandy if one sticks to major cities. Not so good if one travels outside of them.

I typically travel an area on the Left Coast about 350 miles by 150 miles. I am constantly having connection and speed issues if I can connect at all.

 

... and there it is folks -- the perfect storm of "oh it's only a small number of people" mixed with "but it's fast for me"

Oh it's fast where you travel, well lah-dee-huffing-dah for YOU!

If you go by the "official" definition around 20% of Americans live in "rural" areas that are underdeveloped -- but that excludes many "cities" simply because they are incorporated, and NOT because of their infrastructure. The number creeps higher to half if one were to go by available services.

But even assuming the lowest reporting number of 18% of the population being "rural" that's nearly a fifth of the potential audience being told to f*** off. Make no mistake either, that's EXACTLY what the attitude of "oh but everybody who counts has broadband" boils down to; since that's pretty much what you're saying. "those people don't count". How empathetic of you.

Of course, "percent" -- the easy trap to make it feel like it's ok to dismiss large swaths of people, when what we're really talking about is around 70 million people you are being dismissive of. But you know, you kill one it's a tragedy, you kill a million it's a statistic.

When building for success you don't make more work, use lame excuses to do a half-assed job, that results in alienating a fifth or more the potential audience!

"Oh it's a minority so who cares" -- wow, thanks for outing yourself. Do you prefer the pointy white hood, or the snazzy armband?

 

I prefer the actual context of the use of "minority" when referencing statistics... majority = most. minority = least.

You people who live in America must live in the woods or something...

 

CNN utilizes HTTP/2 and it serves data via JavaScript. It must be utilizing a powerful back-end software as well. Once the website caches on your machine it will be lightening fast. Further more, it uses delayed technique. You will still get content fast while images loaded in the background.

I read it from the other part of the world and it's still fast. As @NetStar points out, most of my data plan used up on watching videos, like when I go to the beaches and the mountains, and I like it a lot, and it can be topped up. Not a problem at all. I think the coding serves it purposes.

Writing good html helps but it's not all of it.

 

Since they're still using conventional pageloads shoving a video-sized markup for EVERY load is not going to be fast, I don't care how the blazes you "cache" it or pull other such trickery. There's a REASON conventional media outlets are failing their way into death online, and are likely to go the way of Sears -- a company that historically should have pwned the Internet given their catalog mail order history -- once their actual revenue stream -- cable TV -- dies. And let's face it, streaming is killing conventional TV.

Using more scripting and style than just loading the images would take, or sleazing so much into one page as if they had a 15x22 of 8pt text that nobody even wastes time scrolling down to see all of it.

Hell, it sits there just loaded on my Bluboo S8+ sucking 30% CPU, spiking to 100% CPU/GPU just to scroll the damned thing, with a jerky scroll more akin to a 386/40 than anything from this millenia.

Methinks we have WILDLY different definitions of the word "fast".

 

Aka what the word means, as it is used in EVERY context in which it is used. Hence it being the core of how people get this sociopathic mindset of dismissing anyone who isn't in their perfect world majority. It's how we have racism and bigotry. It's how people become blind to the evils done in the majority's name. It's how we justify treating large swaths of people like dirt just because they're not in the majority.

AGAIN, why I compare those who use "but it's no the majority" as an excuse to the people who get upset over paying for a wheelchair ramp at their business, or who park in handicap spaces because "F*** the handicapped". Probably handicapped due to vaccine injury, they'd be fine if they applied some essential oils, or spent more times on their knees praying to Jesus... BARF!

Or we blindly believe lies as to who the "majority" is. See the lies related to "average income". When 80% of the population makes less than half the average, the "middle class" isn't a majority, no matter how much everyone acts like it is.

Again 18-20% (depending on what census numbers you use) of Americans live in "rural" areas, but that number underestimates GREATLY the places that could be considered such. Just because places here in NH like Keene and Peterborough are incorporated as Cities doesn't make them not be 'rural'. Hence why broadband faster than 5mbps is a new concept within the past 8 years, why 45/3 is $70/mo, and thanks to the terrain why the best propagating cell service isn't even up to G3 spec.



Population density. See all the places in dark red and the darkest orange? That's where you're likely to find "modern' connections at prices people can afford. See the ENTIRE rest of the nation? Not so much. The more people you can nab per meter of wire, the more likely you are to see the infrastructure built.

Much like with healthcare, Americans pay ten times what the rest of the world does for an inferior service. This becomes more and more true the farther you get from a metro area.

Going to Boston -- or even Nashua -- is a night and day experience on connectivity. Now sure, half the population of NH lives in either Manchester or Nashua, but is that any reason to alienate anyone -- rich or poor -- in an entire state just because they don't live in the Manchvegas tri-town area?

I've traveled a good deal myself, and I've always found once you get outside the "tourist zones" near the cities connectivity goes to shit.

Don't even get me started about the people who just can't justify the cost of the high speed plans or large data allocations -- the ones who sit there leeching the free wireless at restaurants, schools, and college campuses ... where you end up having 20+ people sharing 15mbps "business" class connections.

There's a reason part of my testing is to go to Panera Bread mid-day when its packed to see how fast things are in a "Real world" environment, instead of trusting my home plan that's better than what 80% of people in this town have access to. It can be fast for ME, but again that means shit. Lah-dee-dah for ME.

Since again, survivorship bias. "oh but its fine for me" means exactly two things, and Jack left town. It's a problem we often see with developers in that the most dismissive ones are always upper-middle class, have access to $800 phones, don't blink an eyelash at $100/mo wired internet and $150/mo phone plans, and have mega-powerful computers they develop on that most "normal" people can only dream of affording. The end result is bloated crap that actually tells most normal people "You don't matter to me".

Which brings up another good testing tool -- VM's. Have a ridiculously powerful desktop you're working on? Boot up OSX inside VirtualBox. It's so slow it does a great job of replicating what someone with a $300 walmart special laptop gets as a user experience.

Though that's part of the reason my development workstation is a Celeron J1900 even though I have a 4700k in the media center and am likely grabbing a Zen 2 come November. If you develop on an artificially or selectively limited system, you're guaranteed to be golden for as many as possible.

 

Are you stupid or something? I stated "However, for the minority that are using prepaid phones..." which means that there are very FEW people with limited data plans compared to the MAJORITY of people who have full plans with unrestricted data. That is NOT saying anything about race. You are a complete idiot if you read that wrong. Moron.

I absolutely humor myself reading your posts. You are so stubborn and naive it's ridiculous. I can't wait to see the 7 paragraphs you write in response. Your garbage posts and often garbage advice for people bring down the quality of DP.

 

Are we even talking the same huffing language? Or are simile's and comparisons beyond your comprehension?

I didn't say it was, I said it's the same mindset and mentality used to justify the same levels of ignorance.

Literacy, you should try it, it's nice.

Which I'm not aware of being a "majority" in the first place. Who the f*** can afford these unlimited plans, that legendary 2%? The 10% of the population that makes over the "average" income?

Certainly few if any people I know, or if they do they're making ridiculous sacrifices elsewhere.

But even if it's not a majority, that's NOT a legitimate reason to treat them as if we had a Indian caste system!

I absolutely humor myself reading your posts. You are so stubborn and naive it's ridiculous. I can't wait to see the 7 paragraphs you write in response. Your garbage posts and often garbage advice for people bring down the quality of DP.[/QUOTE]