1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Detect edge of page

Discussion in 'CSS' started by Rub3X, Nov 28, 2015.

  1. #1
    http://i.imgur.com/FT0NYTz.png

    I have this netflix like hover menu that pops up when you hover over a movie. Unfortunately, the popup is unaware of its positioning and when you scroll too far up or down it just cuts off the pop up. How can I make it "sense" the horizontal and vertical edges of the screen so it pops the menu up somewhere that is always visible?

    An example of what I am talking about can be found here:

    tinyurl.com/hrtkgf9
    SEMrush
    Btw sorry if this is not a CSS issue, I wasn't totally certain if this would need to be solved with CSS or JS.
     
    Rub3X, Nov 28, 2015 IP
    SEMrush
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #2
    Did you get rid of the hover altogether? I'm not seeing anything anywhere on any of your pages that even remotely resembles your PNG.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 28, 2015 IP
  3. Rub3X

    Rub3X Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    75
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #3
    Strange I am seeing it on the latest versions of Chrome, IE, Edge, and Firefox. Are you on the /rocky/ page? It's only for a single movie in that table, the latest movie from 2006.
     
    Rub3X, Nov 28, 2015 IP
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #4
    Oh, I see, it was chopped off completely as my window was too narrow.

    Generally speaking if you care about people actually USING a site like that, those types of flyover effects are usability rubbish -- and an implementation nightmare when it comes time to make the site responsive. It reeks of "gee ain't it neat" nonsense and letting some artsy type who doesn't know enough about accessibility handle what they call "design"

    When it is anything but.

    Though that site is an accessibility nightmare to begin with with the gibberish use of headings, broken attempt at being responsive, fixed metric fonts, etc, etc... much less the painfully agonizing amount of time that absurd 2.1 megabytes in 89 files takes to load. (around 30 seconds here, most all of that waiting on handshaking thanks to the ridiculous number of separate files.)

    You'd almost think it was off the shelf garbage like turdpress with jQuery smeared all over it any old way.

    I would advise REMOVING not just that goofy artsy hover, but gutting down 90% of scripting and reducing the codebase greatly as the bloat is compromising functionality and usability.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 28, 2015 IP
  5. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Illustrious Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    6,135
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Best Answers:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    400
    #5
    In your case making it detect the edge of the screen is not going to do any good, since it's going to run out of space and cover the link itself. I don't know what css you have there, I have no time or desire to dig that deep. Something like this may work better in your case:

    http://jsfiddle.net/zgCb7/4491/

    Won't work in the earlier IEs, but who cares.
     
    qwikad.com, Nov 28, 2015 IP
  6. ketting00

    ketting00 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #6
    Why don't you use position and z-index. It's stacks up element layers so you don't have problem with element goes out of frame.
     
    ketting00, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  7. Rub3X

    Rub3X Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    75
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #7
    @deathshadow

    For starters, most of us aren't browsing the web on a potato with 800*600 resolution on dialup. This is 2015, most people can download 2mb in less than a second. But I will take your advice, I've already eliminated a couple of JS files, and will cut the size of my background image to a fraction of what it is now. But just because you are correct, doesn't mean you aren't an asshole. I'm guessing you'd go a whole lot further in life not being an arrogant elitist.
     
    Rub3X, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  8. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    368
    Best Answers:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #8
    You may need to get out more. We've had crap weather the last several days so I decided to get out of the house and spend the afternoon at my favorite Starbucks. I guess I wasn't the only one with cabin fever. The place was packed; nearly everyone with their laptops, tablets and phones fired up and sucking down bandwidth. As fast as Starbucks's wi-fi usually is, my connection was stuttering a bit even when I was simply accessing moderate sized files from my home work station. Then, too, mine was one of the few laptops in use. Tablets far outnumbered laptops, with their smallish displays and phones were in the clear majority with their minuscule screens. I did not, I confess, see anyone on an 800×600 rez potato dialliing their ISP.

    Maybe a lot, but I doubt most can. That takes a nominal ~20Mb/s bandwidth, and then, only if its a single file. A while back, I had to download several thousand files totaling ~25GB. My throughput on a fast fiber-optic network was less than 300KB/s. More than 20 hours was taken up by network latency.

    Yeah, again, you need to get out more. Do you think that Gates, Allen, Jobs, Musk, Hilary, Kerry and Obama aren't/weren't arrogant elitists? Even arrogant, elitist assholes?
     
    kk5st, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  9. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #9
    Hm... again, I'm very glad I'm not living in the US. Okay, so the wifi at SB was choked - then just go on your cellphone? 4G gives about 50-100 Mbps download, even with fairly congested towers. And seriously - fiber? And you get 300kbps? That is seriously fucked up. I have 100Mbps coax, and if I download 25GB, at least from decent servers, or torrents, it takes about... 4-5 hours, at most.

    I see this "people are sitting on tablets and cellphones" - yes, and most of those have screens that are way better than most laptops. Again, I guess it might differ a bit from where you're located, but here, in my country, the top sellers are iPhone 6,6S, Galaxy S6 Edge, Sony X4/5, iPads with retina displays, etc. I don't think there even exist a tablet on the market here with lower resolution than 1280x1024 (and that is an absolute minimum, I'd say) - most have HD or better. As for laptops, minimum resolution is 1366x768 - while still crap, it's not horrible, at least for general browsing.

    I'd still say you need to have a look at the user-segments you're trying to reach. If 90% of your customers access your website selling Apple-products from Apple-hardware, for instance, you don't really need to consider people with Netbooks from last decade.

    While you should still create sites that will deliver the content regardless, if one never says "sorry, we don't support that anymore", we'll never go forward. Hence why I stopped supporting anything below IE 9 ages ago, and don't really care about Safari's outdated rendering engine anymore.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  10. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #10
    Nor am I -- 1920x1080 laptop was what I was on; but with portrait taskbar and portrait tabs I end up with ~1000 or so of that 1900 free.

    Much less, ever heard of netbooks? Tablets? Oh what am I saying, of course you haven't.

    NOT that everyone wastes the entire screen on a browser window either; nor in the age of responsive layouts should that even be an issue... but of course you have a BROKEN attempt at being responsive so...

    Even if that were true, that's as a single file... ever heard of handshaking? Hence why I mentioned the NUMBER of files since a real world first-load of that site should be averaging 17.8 seconds or more JUST in file requests assuming things aren't connection limit throttled on either end. Worst case scenario that's a minute and a half JUST in handshaking SEPARATE from data transfer.

    Ever notice when uploading via FTP that it takes significantly longer to upload a hundred separate 1k files than it does a single file ten times that total size? Yeah, that!!!

    Much less that using that much bandwidth is a giant middle finger on your part to people on phones, tablets, connections with bandwidth caps that are cutoff, or more painful overage charges (just ask our friends in Canada and Australia about that)... much less the impending bandwidth crunch since NOBODY is building new backbone infrastructure nor is even willing to pony up the cash to do so. Hence why 2/3rds of the US is still at 3mbps or less downstream... and a quarter or so is lucky if they get a third that! Not everyone lives in the magical fantasyland of 45mbps fiber sitting right on a major backbone!!!

    See Coos County NH where 115kbps shotgun is a "fast connection"... or the Dakotas, or large swaths of Utah and Colorado...

    Yeah, that's the type of namby pamby "wah wah" I've never had much stomach for. Usually when someone says "IT's not what you are saying it's how you said it" I really have to call bullshit on that one. It's EXACTLY what's being said...

    People just can't handle the truth.

    Truth like when you come across this:
    [​IMG]

    It's time to pitch the entire mess in the trash and start over. Of course it's turdpress, I'd probably be saying that anyways with it vomiting up 38k of markup to deliver 4k of plaintext and under a dozen content images -- three or even four times what should have been used on such a simple layout.

    Since as I've said a million times the past decade, if you don't know what's wrong with this:

    <div class="menu-topmenu-container"><ul id="menu-top" class="menus menu-topmenu"><li id="menu-item-767" class="menu-item menu-item-type-post_type menu-item-object-page menu-item-767">
    Code (markup):
    Or this:
    <select class='mobile-menu' id='mobile-sec-menu'><option value='#'>Go to ...</option><option value='http://moviesorder.com/movies/'>All Movies</option><option value='http://moviesorder.com/letter-movie-start/'>A-Z Movie List</option><option value='http://moviesorder.com/contact-us/'>Contact us</option></select>		<select class='mobile-menu' id='mobile-main-menu'><option value='#'>Go to ...</option>		<script>
    			jQuery(document).ready(function(){
    				jQuery('.menu-primary li').each(function() {
    					jQuery('<option />', {
    					'value':jQuery(this).find('a').attr('href'),
    					'text':jQuery(this).find('a').html()
    					}).appendTo(jQuery('#mobile-main-menu'));
    				});
    			});
    		</script>
    Code (markup):
    Or for pissing on Christmas this:

    style='font-size: 11.2369942197pt;'
    Code (markup):
    You probably shouldn't be building websites in the first place!

    Asshole? Yeah, I admit it, but if I'm being an arrogant ass, it's because I see people being lazy ingnorant asses sleazing out garbage like that with off the shelf solutions like turdpress which were built by people who have no damned business making websites either!
     
    deathshadow, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  11. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #11
    Yes, not everyone lives in magical fantasy-fiber land.

    Assuming there even ARE 4G towers (3g is spotty where I am, and I'm visual LOS to the nearest one)

    Much less I very much doubt the people going to "Seattle Fairy Coffee" to leech the wireless are going to be wasting hundreds of dollars a month on a 4g plan! BULL-FREAKING-****!!!!! (as it is I'm paying $65/mo right now for an ALLEGED 15mbps cable connect that I'm probably going to have downgraded as it's not worth it over the 3mbps plan most of the time)

    ... and most of them LIE about their resolution as being anywhere from 50% (apple) to 25% smaller (kindle fire HDX) regarless of what you throw at them for a viewport META or CSS.

    Yeah, for rich effete elitist assholes maybe; but with an average income in my area of 25K... not so much. Much less that's the average with two thirds the town living at or below the federal poverty level... Half the people in town still on XP boxes at home as they aren't going to throw away money on "ooh shiny" appletard crap... only time you see crApple products here is when the college is in session.

    Lame ***ing excuses, outright ignorance of anything outside the fantasyland of fiber, much less the reality that HANDSHAKING takes just as damned long REGARDLESS of the "connection speed"!!!

    Gah, you guys would freak if you were stuck using HughesNet... $240/mo for 512kbps down and 14.4kbps up.
     
    deathshadow, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  12. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    368
    Best Answers:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #12
    Now why in hell would I 1) trade a 16" screen for a 4 or 5"? And 2) run into excess bandwidth $$ fees?

    Did you not read what I said? I said throughput speed. Actual net download time was only about 4 hours. With so many files, handshaking, error checking, waiting, etc. ate up the 20 something hours. BTW, I had only a high speed single source, so torrents weren't exactly in the cards. If time were critical, sneakernet would have been a consideration. A few weeks ago I had a similar download need, though not as large a group of files and bittorrent was an option, and yes, latency was nearly zero with 60 some odd seeders. The files were loaded in little more than the time it took for a cup of coffee.

    I call bulsh. The screens may be high resolution, but character glyphs still need to be large enough to read without a microfilm reader. For display purposes there is a difference between physical ppi and logical ppi.

    Again, It matters little the resolution if the screen is too small. The only reason for high pixel density beyond 100±/in is for critical print work, and even there you make press runs for testing.

    That's just a silly argument, one that's been debunked again and again.

    More silliness. You don't need to jump through hoops, you just need to code well in the first place. The well coded site degrades gracefully right down to the UA that simply uses sane rules to strip the tags off the plain text.

    g
     
    kk5st, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  13. ketting00

    ketting00 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    118
    #13
    It becomes a battle ground eh?

    Keep up the good discussion. The more you throw in, the more readers gain.

    Ha ha, I know what this means now. It's good to see more people besides deathshadow using the term.

    What does 'using sane rules to strip the tags off the plain text' mean?
     
    ketting00, Nov 29, 2015 IP
  14. kk5st

    kk5st Prominent Member

    Messages:
    3,487
    Likes Received:
    368
    Best Answers:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    335
    #14
    It means to have some rationale for rendering the content. If you simply remove the tags, everything will be one single line of text. Sanity suggests that p tags indicate a block of text set apart from other content (the structural definition of a paragraph). What rule would you apply? Maybe two newlines at the end? List items? Maybe an asterisk at the start of the item and a newline at the end. For an image, maybe ignore all but render the quoted strings of the alt and src attributes.

    Without sane default rendering rules, all formatting would be lost, making the content difficult to read and understand. That is what you get when there are no style sheets, the UA's default styles. There is no good reason for any web page to fail to render intelligibly on any browser, no matter how simplistic that UA is.

    g
     
    kk5st, Nov 30, 2015 IP
    ketting00 likes this.
  15. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #15
    You misunderstood me - I was talking about using your cellphone as a wifi-access point, to hook your computer up to. Not using the phone/tablet instead of the computer. Sorry, I thought the civilized world was beyond paying for traffic.

    That is true, of course, but then I don't really need to blow up stuff to 150% normal size for viewing on a smaller screen. Of course using em's and % will mostly fix those issues (too small text), if it happens.

    Somewhat true, but anything over 10" suits full-HD just fine. Granted, none of the retina-screens uses their full resolution when browsing the web, for instance, doesn't mean the higher resolution doesn't improve the look of the pixel-map.

    Again, it depends - I live in Norway. I don't expect customers from the US, or Australia, or Canada, or any other place where they have bandwidth limits and congested broadband. I cater to my local public, which mostly have broadband, 3g/4g and/or workplace/student internet with speeds in the gbps. 500KB, 1MB, 2MB... it doesn't really matter that much.

    I do agree on that - I'm just saying that adding stuff like jQuery (the library) and using larger images and such doesn't really matter if your audience is expecting it, and are considered being on lines that can handle the traffic. Yes, I do understand that that doesn't extend to the whole world - hence why I was talking about assessing the market you're trying to reach. If you wanna create something for the whole world to use, you have to consider the least common denominator, if you're catering to a "select few" with a fairly transparent, known setup as a cross-section, you don't have to follow every strict rule. That doesn't mean you should throw garbage at the site, using bootstrap and pushing images and content that is way too large, nor use the wrong semantics or px for given measurement - it just means that you don't have to always consider every single little byte that builds up the page.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 30, 2015 IP
  16. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #16
    Hmm, some of my previous response didn't get finished before I hit post...

    Ah yes, the "target audience" lame excuse...

    It's so easy to treat small percentages as collateral damage -- oh Opera is only 3%, we're targeting Apple users so only 10% of potential visitors aren't on apple products, only 2% of visitors are on non-visual UA's -- until eventually you've alienated all potential users. It's the slippery slope at it's worst.

    Though the real idiocy of the "percentage" excuse is that 3% or even 10% might sound acceptable -- until you realize there are over 3 billion internet users -- and realistically on the majority (if not all) projects, well as that article says "This is the Web. The only thing you know about who will come is that you do not know who will come."

    Percentages are ALWAYS used as a lie. REPEATEDLY. It's easy to dismiss a small percentage -- it's easy to make a percentage support any agenda you want to support via card stacking -- you just omit the bits of data that debunk it.

    Again that example from a few years ago that people STILL use today to try and claim there are less IE users now than there were at IE's peak. "Market Share" is one of the biggest bits of disinformation that's abused to create outright lies.

    You use NetApplciation's numbers, which is one of the few to use the same tracking method since before 2004, IE has gone from 91% of the market in mid 2004 to 58% today (rounding to the nearest whole %). So IE has lost users, right? **** NO! They GAINED users as in jan 2004 there were only 700 million users online. Today there's over 3.5 BILLION. I'm no mathemagician, but I'm pretty sure that 91% of 700 million is less than 58% of 3.5 billion.

    Even if you used a lowball percentage like StatCounter's buggy (and inaccurate thanks to false positives on Firefuxxors) 19%, that's still 637 million in 2004 vs. 665 million -- in which case guess what, there are STILL more IE users today than there were when they "owned the market".

    But worse than all that, it's a LAME EXCUSE defeats the ENTIRE REASON FOR USING HTML IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

    So you're basically telling 1 in 5 visitors to go take a flying ****?

    Really you have to make the distinction though between "support" and "perfect" -- IF you are using HTML PROPERLY, avoid using the idiotic halfwit dumbass redundant crap that serves NO legitimate purpose from HTML 5 (article, section, nav, footer, and are using CSS PROPERLY with separation of presentation from content, AND you are trying as much as possible to make pages that work should even fancier bits of bloated crap like JavaScript fail to run at least providing SOME form of fallback -- or better using scripting to enhance rather than replace or worse provide functionality.... Well...

    THERE IS ZERO BLASTED EXCUSE for a page to not work in legacy IE, possibly all the way back to IE5 of zero extra effort!

    But if you crap out your HTML any-old-way, slather appearance all over the markup instead of maintaining separation, ONLY provide functionality through scripttardery, you're not going to have ANY of that; Which means you aren't using ANY of those technologies for WHAT THEY ARE FOR!

    I mean it's not going to be perfect -- I no longer bend over backwards because "OH noes it's not centered in IE5" or "OH NOES, IE9/earlier aren't getting transitions" or even "OH NOES, IE8/earlier aren't getting rounded corners and shadow effects". That's goofy presentational crap and NOT functionality. It's why I laugh at the majority of scripted "shim" asshattery as pointless code bloat rubbish and indication some art *** has been given too much control over a project.

    https://www.w3.org/wiki/Graceful_degradation_versus_progressive_enhancement
    http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/graceful-degradation
    http://webdesign.about.com/od/webdesignglossary/g/graceful-degradation.htm
    http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/

    It's actually a VERY old computing term, and the W3C's description isn't quite right (but it's the W3C, big shock there). Generally speaking progressive enhancement -- starting simple and functional then adding enhancements one after the other -- PROVIDES graceful degradation. It's the most reliable method of getting it. They are NOT "two separate things"... Well, that's oversimplifying. Progressive Enchancement provides graceful degradation by it's very nature -- but it's not the only way of providing it; just the simplest and most direct.

    I would never have worded it that way -- the tags are still being obeyed to convey their meaning; it's just what you THINK of as their default appearance is NOT their meaning!

    Take teletype, one of the earliest (paper wasting) methods of accessing DARPANet, which eventually became the Internet. Most of them were just overglorified daisy wheel or other mechanical character printers -- as such they were incapable of doing things like bold, or italic, and even making underscore involved trickery like sendign backspace characters.

    So bold was usually conveyed by putting and asterisk before and after the text, italic would get a tilde before and after them. Headings would be forced to all caps and then indent until the next HR or a different level heading is encountered. Anchors may show the URI alongside the text separated by a colon or other character, or use a carat followed by a number to create a reference at the bottom of the document.. LYNX still does this to a varying extent.

    So for example this markup:

    <h1>
    	CutCodeDown - <small>Minimalist Semantic Markup</small>
    </h1>
    
    <ul id="mainMenu">
    	<li><a href="#">Blog</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Articles</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">About</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Reference</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">Links</a></li>
    	<li><a href="#">FAQ</a></li>
    </ul>
    
    <h2>Recent Blog Entries</h2>
    	
    	<h3>18 July 2015 - Site Construction Underway</h3>
    	<img src="images/demoPlate.png" alt="Image Description" class="plate">
    	<p>
    		This page is being built to show how to create a simple page layout using <b>progressive enhancement</b>.
    	</p>
    Code (markup):
    May be conveyed on a TT type device as:

    CUTCODEDOWN - /Minimalist Semantic Markup/
    
    	1) Blog : #
    	2) Articles : #
    	3) About : #
    	4) Reference : #
    	5) Links : #
    	6) FAQ : #
    
    	RECENT BLOG ENTRIES
    	
    		18 JULY 2015 - SITE CONSTRUCTION UNDERWAY
    		
    			)) Image Description : images/demoPlate.png
    		
    			This page is being built to show how to create a simple page layout using *progressive enhancement*.
    Code (markup):
    ... and REALLY good legacy UA's used to detect the single anchors per LI, and would auto hot-key the first LI or DIR encountered; said functionality to be later replaced by accesskeys.

    The tags weren't "stripped off" -- they were just conveyed in a different manner. That manner being an attempt to convey the MEANING of the tag. That's why I'm always saying "If you choose your tags based on their defaunlt appearance instead of their meaning, you're choosing the wrong tags for all the wrong reasons."

    That output may be plaintext, but that doesn't mean they were tossed in the bin. Just as the output may be braille, spoken aloud, typewritten, sent via TTL, morse code (not a joke)...

    ... and that's the entire reason Tim Berners Lee created HTML in the first place; so that documents could be sent to a plethora of devices of differing capabilities and sizes and have the MEANING of it's elements like paragraphs, lists and headings be maintained regardless. That's what HTML is FOR!!!

    It's also why the tags in HTML are based on professional writing, hence why a H1 is the heading for ALL pages in a "document" (site), H2 indicate the start of a subsection of that H1, H3 means the start of a subsection of that H2 -- and so forth down the line. It does NOT mean "text of different sizes" -- that's just one of many possible visual means of conveying that meaning. Just as a HR does not mean "draw a line across the screen" it means "start of a subsection where a heading is unwanted or unwarranted"... Every tag - even <b>, <i>, <cite>, <em> and <strong> all have different MEANINGS... even when their default appearance may be the same. When you make a book title be italic you are doing so because it's a title and that's what you do with it in professional writing, NOT because you are emphasizing it or quoting it.

    Well written HTML, without the presence of CSS or JavaScript, should still provide an accessible page where users can get at what's important -- THE CONTENT.

    As I've been saying for years, there's more to building a website than the screen the overprivileged artsy fartsy type happens to be fortunate enough to sit in front of with their perfect vision.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2015
    deathshadow, Nov 30, 2015 IP
  17. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    9,150
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Best Answers:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #17
    Oh, and before someone chimes in with "yeah, but who cares about teletype anymore" and "that's ancient and holding us back"

    ... it's not ancient, nor is it backwards looking; it's FORWARD looking. Supporting as many possible combinations of user agent and devices as possible by conveying the meaning of properly written content in a device neutral manner. It means not just supporting the old, but supporting new devices we haven't even conceived of yet!

    We got away from that during the browser wars and a LOT of people (even some folks at the W3C and all the mouth-breathers at the WhatWG -- WTFwg is more like it) still have their heads wedged so far up 1997's rump they could floss with it's tonsils... Sleazing out their HTML based on what the tag looks like instead of what it means, scoffing at the mere notion of "separation of presentation from content"... then they wonder why they have an uphill battle with things like accessible design, or rely on fat bloated frameworks as they're too stupid and too ignorant to do anything properly.

    Then of course because they have the wrong mindset these dipshits turn around and claim that more work with even more to learn is somehow "easier".

    If you think jQuery, bootcrap, YUI or any of the rest of that asshattery is "easier", you don't know enough about HTML, CSS or JS to even be flapping your gums on the topic!

    Just look at your typical turdpress template, with its dumbass "let's throw 50 classes at EVERYTHING" ignorant halfwit bull.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2015
    deathshadow, Nov 30, 2015 IP
  18. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,630
    Likes Received:
    725
    Best Answers:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    470
    #18
    There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about my meaning here. First off, when I say I don't support certain browsers, I mean I don't bother making an effort getting them to "behave" and show the page as it's supposed to look. The page will still convey its content, because I know how HTML works.
    While I do understand the "it should work for everyone, everywhere", the chance of a blind person visiting a shop for iPhones with a braille reader is fairly scarce.
    That there are 3.5 billion Internet users around the world is rather irrelevant, really, if I make a website in Norwegian selling local goods with no option to ship overseas. In that case, I would worry about meeting my local customer's expectations, and not really give a damn if someone on dialup from Sierra Leone isn't getting the page fast enough. That still doesn't mean they shouldn't get a working page on their edge enabled crap-phone with opera mobile, but I'm not gonna care if they don't. That is a realistic view of how the Web works, and how marketing and those who pay for a site thinks.
     
    PoPSiCLe, Nov 30, 2015 IP