My opinion is that spell checkers are for people that have never learned how to spell and are too lazy to learn. I NEVER use spell checkers simply because they CANNOT tell the difference between PAIR, PARE, and PEAR, or SCENTS, CENTS, and SENSE, or THEIR, THERE, and THEY'RE, and so on. I read spell checked CRAP all the time and the spelling in that crap is so atrocious that my brain hurts trying to understand what the writer is trying to communicate.
... and yet, they charge 59 bucks on themeForest for it. Nube predating scam bait; exists for the sole purpose of exploiting people's ignorance with something shiny and flashy. The old-old-old "Owed to a Spell Chequer" I halve a spelling chequer, it came with my pea sea. It plane lee marques four my revue miss steaks aye ken knot sea. Eye ran this poem threw it, your sure reel glad two no, Its vary polished in it's weigh; my chequer tolled me sew. A chequer is a bless sing, it freeze yew lodes of thyme, It helps me awl stiles two reed and aides mi when aye rime. To rite with care is quite a feet of witch won should be proud, and wee mussed dew the best wee can sew flaws are knot aloud. ... And now bee cause my spelling is checked with such grate flare, their are know faults with in my cite of nun eye am a wear! Each frays come posed up on my screen, eye trussed to be a joule. The chequer poured o'er every word, to cheque sum spelling rule. That's why aye brake in two averse, my righting wants too pleas; Sow now ewe sea wye aye dew prays such soft wear for pea seas. --------------------------------------------------- BTW, since I mentioned them I went and caught up on articles at NNGroup as it's been a couple months -- their new article on flat vs. Semi-flat has some REALLY good insights into exactly the things I'm always on about. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/ I'm particularly fond of this part: Since it reminds me of something I'm always saying: You aren't designing the website for yourself, or even for the client -- you are designing the website for the VISITORS and anything that slows that down, gets in the way, or causes accessibility failings is NOT good design.
I really, REALLY feel sorry for you guys. Your Internet sucks :-D tested the dream-page, it loads (on my phone) in about 25 secs, first load. Granted, I'm on 100 mbps cable, fiber to central, coax to apartment.
Which I'd point out is 4.5 seconds SLOWER than what I initially said, though for laughs it's four seconds faster than what I just pulled since I thought I'd grab a copy of the perf chart out of FF to illustrate what's going on: You know how you know when a template is designed and developed by people so ignorant they have NO business even making websites? When they are loading 1.9 megabytes of CSS in 18 separate files, and 808k of scripttardery in 25 separate files. When there's more bandwidth wasted on the CSS than the IMAGES -- on a page filled with images that have no damned business in a template in the first place -- that's developer and designer ineptitude meeting to create the perfect storm! Any way you look at it, that's ten times longer to load even on your magical fantasy-land Norwegian fiber than I'd "design" for, and at least ten seconds longer than the cutoff where people go "screw this" and try some other website... and ENTIRELY typical of the garbage vomited up by "designers" who see nothing wrong with asshattery like turdpress, jqueery and bootcrap. But again, not like success or usefulness means a damned thing to the ignorant fools who call themselves "designers" when all they know is photoshop, or the outright deluded halfwits who think bloated off the shelf CSS frameworks and scripttardery actually save them time or effort. But again, it's as a friend of mine said recently: "The web is a shantytown; there's no authority, no building codes, and the majority of it should be condemned as unsafe and uninhabitable." What can one expect when the majority of people creating sites and providing hosting for them are little more than overglorified slum lords. They just hide the rotted wood with a slap of whitewash, and who cares if it falls apart killing someone next week. But that's all most of these artsy designs are; sure they're pretty, but it's whitewash over rot that falls apart the moment anyone actually tries to *SHOCK* use it for what it's actually supposed to be for. But it's a very pretty coat of paint.
Oh, I'm not saying it's good, in any way. However, I do think that the w3c and browser-makers only contribute to the problem with vague standards which are next-to-incomprehensible for a layman (and quite often for people who's been reading RFCs for a while too). It's not rocket science, but for the lack of authorative sources that explain stuff in a simple, understandable way, I do understand why people go with "it's working, and it looks pretty".
Which is something I've been saying pretty much since HTML 4 was released. It certainly doesn't help the W3C is basically toothless or that the WhatWG that made HTML 5 was more interested in documenting what people were doing circa 1999-2003 than in saying what people should be doing -- but the specification itself is filled with such painfully bad legalese and cryptic wordings I've many times wondered if it was translated to Japanese and back to English like super rocket monkey-punch death car. The very nature by which the specifications are written is broken; think about it: The specification on how to write websites is written from the point of view of implementing it in browsers, NOT from the point of view of actually writing sites? That they can make an utter and complete mess of such simple terms as "empty" leading to folks like the die-hard XML zealots going "why isn't <div /> valid" is mind-numbingly stupid. You know things are messed up when <div></div> is NOT what the specification means when referring to an "empty tag". You start using terms like deprecated (wasn't aware we were talking down to them, thought we were devaluing them which is a similar but different word), antecedant, closures and other words, quite often NOT for what the word even MEANS -- it ends up being like in court where they use terms like arrears and dropping into latin for the simple reason that the majority of people will have no clue what is being said. Kind of like C syntax programming languages -- legalese and it's kin exist for the sole purpose of perpetuating the ILLUSION that something simple is in fact some big overwhelming complicated mess you need hand-holding to get through. It's why I keep toying with forming a group to make a HTML specification that actually is written from the point of view of what SHOULD be done in a language normal people might have a chance at understanding since it's not rocket science, it's just that the W3C and WhatWG have made it LOOK like such. Much less they themselves seem to be entirely missing the point of their own specifications with the schizophrenic "too many cooks" design by committee texts -- to go hand in hand with their not even seeming to know what the word "specification" means. In the same way most "designers" seem to not know what design means, instead thinking it means "ooh, pretty art". I know more than a few engineers who would look at the HTML "specification" and what people are calling "design" right now, and would shake their heads in utter and complete disgust; assuming they didn't punch somebodies lights out.
That was the longest post I ever read on DigitalPoint. Look, I get your point and I was never trying to upset you or get you hyped up enough to write so much.. I just feel like it would be impossible for me to make money as a web developer if I ignored HTML5, jQuery, and frameworks like Bootstrap and Foundation.. I mean, have you looked at the jobs on freelancer, upwork, etc? All I was trying to say is yo, it ain't that bad! Yeah, all those themeforest themes really go overboard trying to have the most features for more sales, its ridiculous and I agree they're horrible in most cases. But, they don't HAVE to be, and not every developer is going to use Bootstrap for EVERYTHING and sometimes people like me just do it when we have to for a client. I think it would be a bad decision to ignore this stuff if you're trying to have a career in web development. How about teach people how to adapt and make good sites with HTML 5, instead of preaching about the past??? Geezz man, no hard feelings. I really felt bad I said that about your website, but I always get frustrated when I see someone 'hating' - and wasting sig space to diss html 5 gave me a bad impression of you. I get your point, wish you the best, so let's stop this petty stuff now.
*SNICKER* New here be ye? Ask around, those are short posts for me, but I've been around forums long enough I can remember people bitching that the 32k post limit of most sites was "too tiny". You know how Marine Corps snipers don't get out of bed for ranges of less than 500 meters? I'm the same way with posting. I try to be thorough, complete and form complete thoughts and arguments, with similes to try and relate more mundane topics to the technical ones. Something becoming increasingly frustrating with the Twitter Generation TLDR mouth-breathers and illiterate fools for whom concepts like a simile go so far over their head you'd think they had Seckel syndrome. Son, I can type faster than I can talk. (sometimes that CAN be an issue, which is why I usually edit every post multiple times before hitting send). Then your working for the wrong people, looking in the wrong places, or not taking the time to educate clients on better solutions. Any halfwit teenager or college grad can sleaze together framework garbage, it takes an ACTUAL professional to do the job right. SADLY a lot of clients are "misinformed" because they are under the delusion they can get sound advice on technical topics from the pages of Forbes -- which to be frank is like trying to get financial advice from the pages of Popular Electronics. With the majority of clients IF they know the terms HTML 5, jQuery or Bootstrap, it is likely because they saw the words in passing and only know them as a sick marketing buzzword akin to "web 2.0" or "SEO", or some previous scam artist put the saddle on them and took them for a ride... sadly in the latter case most of the time the answer is NOT one they want to hear, but they sure as shine-ola need to be told. "You were scammed, throw it out and start over!" They do if they use those frameworks. BY IT'S VERY NATURE bootstrap uses presentational classes, removes the concept of separation of presentation from content, and makes people think appearance before semantics or graceful degradation. That's why it's JUST as back-assward an approach to development as screwing around with a WYSIWYG or spanking it on the screen in Photoshop -- and only the ignorant could see it otherwise. That's why this part: Is a bit of a laugh; First off, you have to cover the past to understand 1) how we got into this mess, and 2) not to repeat the mistakes of the past. That's why the advice you'll find a good number of developers making in regards to HTML 5 is to "lip service" it. You write your page as HTML 4 Strict so you KNOW you're not pissing on accessibility or document structure, then slap the 5 lip-service doctype, lang and charset methodology at the top. IF NEED BE you use the tags shoved down our throats like AUDIO and VIDEO (which shouldn't even exist!) and maybe use the new form element types (assuming you pretend they're just type="text" that STILL needs validation server-side) The rest of it? <article>, <nav>, <section>, <header>, <footer>? Pointless redundancies and outdated 1990's thinking. JUST as broken as the halfwit <hgroup> tag that we finally convinced them pissed on logical document structure. "section" may be the next to get the axe swung at it. <canvas> and <progress>? These are scripting only so why do they even have tags? Slapping three separate specifications under one banner? How does that help or make it any easier to follow? For every good thing in HTML 5 (the simplified heading, clarification of HR's role) there are a dozen things that just reek of being carefully crafted to satiate the wants and desires of the halfwits, morons and fools who to this day just sleaze out HTML 3.2 with the vendor proprietary crap that followed, and until recently were slapping 4 tranny on it. It sure as shine-ola isn't meant for anyone who actually embraced the REAL HTML 4 (strict), uses separation of presentation from content, bothers understanding graceful degradation, grasps the simplest of concepts like document structure, or Joe forbid pays attention to usability studies. I actually give you merit for standing up for something you didn't understand or disagreed with. I don't tend to hold grudges particularly with those new to the field who may not have encountered ANY of the concepts I talk about. If I took it personally every time there was a disagreement, well... About the only time I take it personally is when people disagree to allow disagreement; see my opinion of a certain other website with "point" in its name with it's sycophants, ass kissers, brown nosers and general "don't you dare say anything negative about anything" attitude since proving their staff, writing and methodologies to be completely inept might interfere in their book sales. Well we're going to be at odds; I have no use for apologists and those making up lame excuses not to do things properly. If there's **** out there you call it precisely that; the only way to make things better is to tear them apart and build them up stronger. This current trend of namby-pamby limp-wristed "wah, wah, wah, somebody said something negative", "don't upset someone" status quo bull REALLY infuriates me. More so when it is being done to "protect" things that take advantage of others. There's a reason I use the term "nube predation" in regards to a lot of this stuff; in terms of actual improvements as a markup specification HTML 5 offers NOTHING of actual value that couldn't have been done within the scope of 4 Strict... as such what's it's point? The only thing that remains is the creation of a sick buzzword like "web 2.0" completely losing it's actual meaning; a means for professional lecturers who know **** about *** to put buns in seats at seminars, for book writers to change 8 pages in their 15 year out of date books and sell them to people who don't know any better, and for sleazy scam artists to claim they actually now what they are doing when their real goal is to Billy Joe and Bobby Sue. Well, people who defend it, suggest it, promote it, and generally like it leave a sour taste in my mouth; same for all the other idiocy like jQuery, Bootstrap, YUI, mootools, grids, OOCSS, LESS, SASS, react.js -- that result in fat, bloated, broken inaccessible websites. I've never seen a site built with those that didn't have MAJOR accessibility failures and/or massive code bloat to the point of costing two to five times more to host in the long term, being near impossible to maintain or JOE FORBID try to add functionality or fix errors in without tossing the entire disaster in the trash and starting over (which most times is WAY faster a solution). Your defending ANY of it and your reaction did little for my impression of you; I automatically made me assume you know **** about ****. Though as expected once you went after my stuff, you still haven't provided anything of your own, anything to back up your viewpoint, and immediately backed down with "so let's stop now" once pressed. Pretty I saw the last paragraph of your latest reply coming halfway through writing "reply # 19" here.