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.

Geocore vs Flynax classifieds scripts? Are they really the best?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by ineedrealanswers, Nov 30, 2016.

  1. #1
    First I would like to make it clear that I fully understand that starting a classifieds website has a VERY high failure rate. Despite that, I have been working on this business plan for about 3 years now and I know this automotive niche more than anybody on this planet and I have 3 years of amazing content to go with it. I am very confident that I can build a successful website dedicated to this niche.
    SEMrush
    I have been researching classifieds scripts for over a month now and seems like these two are the highest recommended scripts for building a classifieds website. They both have all the features I need. Geocore may have more features but Flynax has a few more features that would benefit my particular site better. Its important to me to find the most quality classifieds script out there for my website that doesn't get buggy with high traffic, which was a common issue I read about with other classifieds scripts out there. Does anybody know who makes a more quality classifieds script? These two scripts are about $250-$350 but I don't mind paying more if there is a better script out there. Measure twice cut once. I want to do this right the first time. If my websites become as successful as I think they will be then I can always pay the big money to have them completely custom built later on. For now, I need a quality, reliable and reputable script to start my online business with. I know somebody here on this forum can tell me which classifieds script is truly the best. Good code, good reliable customer service from a reputable website thats been around long enough to prove its the best or one of the best. Like always, any help here is greatly appreciated, thank you!
     
    ineedrealanswers, Nov 30, 2016 IP
    SEMrush
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #2
    Something I use as a litmus test on off the shelf solutions is the front-end that would face users out of box. HTML and CSS are moronically simple, and that's part of why it's so mind-blowing so many morons, quacks, and sleazeball scam artists screw it up. To be frank, if the front-end is utter and complete inaccessible bloated rubbish, how are we supposed to magically assume their back-end code is worth a flying purple fish, much less actual money.

    That's why MOST of these "pay pocket change for some off the shelf script" systems are little more than outright scams that exist for the SOLE PURPOSE of preying upon the ignorance of those who think they can plunk down a few hundred and walk away with a successful website. That's just not how it works and why honestly if you THINK that's a recipe for success, you're deluding yourself. You don't get the hundreds of man-hours needed for a successful niche-filling site, much less thousands of man-hours needed to bring a full on competitor to a big name without the thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars of investment needed to do so!

    It's this "wishful thinking" of these cheap, sleazy, nonsensical, poorly developed scripts that leads to why most attempts at such sites fall flat on their face so quickly.

    Using JUST the companies websites and their demo's as our dipstick to get a read on their engine states, let's break them down. We can't really compare thier back-end code since both being pay, they don't just hand that out.

    Geocores website screams cookie-cutter developer ineptitude... as does the front-end of their demo. Illegible colour contrasts, willy-nilly font size changes, inaccessible font metrics, pathetically broken attempt at being responsive, and that's before I look at the code.

    Popping the bonnet, we have the typical train wreck of developer ineptitude so common these days, from the classes on the HTML tag, to the X-UA rubbish no site written AFTER IE7 was released should ever need to have added to it (since that exists SPECIFICALLY to be added to old sites to make IE use LEGACY rendering), a broken viewport meta that breaks mobile's ability to zoom in/out, no media target on the stylesheet... and that's before we even get to the <body>?!?

    From there it's endless pointless classes for nothing, endless pointless DIV for nothing, gibberish use of numbered headings, nothing remotely resembling logical document structure, non-breaking spaces doing padding's job, incomplete / broken forms, scripttardery preventing graceful degradation, Pointless redundant comments, title attributes on things that shoudln't even have titles, elements that SHOULD be numbered headings as DIV or SPAN, placeholder doing label's job, comment placements that could be (and in fact are) tripping rendering bugs, static style in the markup, paragraphs around non-paragraph elements... The level of ignorance of how HTML works is so high, I'm shocked the page renders at all... it sure as hell isn't accessible or search-friendly.

    Which all contributes to how they are wasting 139k of HTML on delivering 2.9k of plaintext and two dozen content images -- EASILY TEN TIMES the HTML such a simple page should be using. THAT is developer ineptitude and if the default front-end is this much rubbish, I don't even want to THINK about the disaster it is on the back-end in terms of speed, efficiency, much less security!

    Taking a good look at Flynax their website is even worse, with this wonderful mix of "accessibility, what the **** does that even mean" with "Every ****ing bootstrap site ever!"... we get into the user facing demo of thier product, and...

    Again, illegible colour contrasts, thin-glyph webfonts compromising legibility even further, pixel metric fonts telling users with accessibility needs to go **** themselves, and another BROKEN attempt at being responsive. On accessibility alone before even looking at the code, if Geocores was dog ****, this is dog **** in a paper bag that was lit on fire on your front porch!

    ... and since this seems to be a VW, we have to pop the boot to find the engine which makes Geocores look competantly coded. XML namespace trash in a 5 document, that X-UA rubbish, again a viewport meta designed to tell mobile users to go *** themselves on being able to zooom, no media targets, endless pointless meta that not one legitimate UA gives a flying **** about, blocking scripts in the HEAD explaining the AGONIZINGLY SLOW page-load, IE conditional comments in a pathetic attempt to cover up for developer ineptitude, willy-nilly mix of XML and SGML style closures as if the developers were schizophrenic, and again that's all before we even get to <body>

    Where the first thing inside the document body is a <style> tag, which is utterly and completely invalid inside <body>!!! -- proof right there that the people who make this trash don't know enough about HTML to be writing CSS, JS, PHP, or any other web language!!!

    From there it's just more of the same endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes for nothing, ZERO numbered headings meaning there isn't even an ATTEMPT at a document structure with SPAN being used in utter contempt of accessibility, lists on non-list items, incomplete forms, scripttardery pissing all over the place for stuff that shouldn't even be using JavaScript (big shock given the use of the mouth-breathing halfwit bullshit that is jQuery -- NOT), absolute URI's for no reason other than to waste bandwidth, pointlessly redundant use of title attributes, H3 doing a caption's job, TD doing TH's job... I'm going to have to stop a third of the way of the code because I could hit the post-size limit on these forums before I was done listing all the mistakes made in the markup. This is like someone wiped their ass and called it a website on the markup ALONE...

    Hence the outright batshit nutters 202k of markup their code is vomiting up to deliver 12k of plaintext and six ccontent images -- also EASILY ten times the markup such a simple page should have.

    If they cannot handle the SIMPLEST aspects of web development like HTML and accessible design, what makes you think their back-end code is going to be worth spending money on?!?

    Between the two, it's like comparing a Austin Montego to a Yugo GV. You're lucky if you can make it from Boston to the Cape without the floorboards dropping off.

    But again, at these prices they exist solely to prey upon people's blind hopes. They are nube predating scam artist bullshit, nothing more, nothing less! If they weren't, they wouldn't have all these problems and would probably cost ten to twenty times as much... and not be sold en-masse to every swinging **** through the door.
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
    deathshadow, Nov 30, 2016 IP
  3. ineedrealanswers

    ineedrealanswers Peon

    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    3
    #3
    Thanks a lot Deathshadow, I now have an appointment in 2 weeks to sit down with a consultant who specializes in this stuff. He's a friend of a friend and he's highly recommended so I feel a lot more comfortable dealing with him. He's pricey but definitely worth it. I spoke to him a year ago when my business plan was still evolving and I learned more from him in one hour than I would have learned months on my own.

    As far as these classifieds scripts like Geocore, Flynax, etc. I researched about 30 of the "most popular" scripts but at the end of the day, they all just seem like bullshit. From a business point of view, how is it possible that they are all bullshit? All it takes is one person who know's what they are doing to create a masterpiece of a classifieds script that would straight up sh@t all over all the others. I understand how these classifieds scripts all profit preying on those who don't know any better. I just don't get how nobody after all this time has created a legit, proven, reputable classifieds script with actual real life quick responding customer service. I bet I could find snow boots online for my cat right now and even that business would have a legit customer service phone number with somebody who actually answers the phone to help customers.

    BTW, I called Flynax twice to see if the bad customer service reviews were true. First time, it rang for 2 straight minutes with no answer and not even an answering machine. NOT EVEN AN ANSWERING MACHINE!!! Second time I called a few hours later "all within typical business hours" and 30 seconds in a lady answered and sounded like she just woke up. Sounded like she had me on speaker phone and I could barely even hear her. I have called Geocore about 4 different times through out the past 2 weeks. They were more "professional" because they actually had an answering machine. HOWEVER, even after calling them 4 times and me leaving 2 voicemails with my phone number, STILL NO CALL BACK FROM GEOCORE!!! Situations like this make me wish President Trump brings back public hangings and stoning people like they did in the old days. Then maybe people would think twice before scamming others.
     
    ineedrealanswers, Dec 2, 2016 IP
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #4
    There's a LOT of money to be made pretending that outright bullshit isn't... See "pyramid shaped but honest Johnson it's not a Pyramid scheme" bullshit like Mary Kay, Amway, Herbalife... see the ENTIRE "affiliate marketing" industry where the people who make money at it are the ones scamming the majority of people who bank their hopes and dreams on wishful thinking. See the entire advertising industry which is imploding on itself day by day year by year as they try crazier and crazier hard sell to try and budge the needle.

    As Cracked (of all places) so rightly observed, there's money to be made in marketing and advertising pretending it's 1955... in that same way there's money to be made pretending it 1997 for code, 2003 for design, and that accessibility just doesn't matter -- NOT for site owners, but for the majority of people unqualified to actually make websites who just saddle them up en-masse.

    Seriously, it's messed up when Cracked is in fact a more observant and insightful source of information than legitimate news outlets!

    It's why so many in the industry LOVED the sick buzzword "web 2.0" abusing it for things it didn't mean, it's why using the names of frameworks like jQuery and Bootstrap more as sick buzzwords and marketspeak continues to push them despite their ruining basically everything they touch... as the joke goes, the best clients to saddle up are the ones who get their IT advice from the pages of Forbes -- which is much akin to getting financial advice from Popular Mechanics. Before you know it you've sunk your entire nestegg into Moller...

    There are TWO flaws with that thinking... the first is the flaw of averages. The concept of "one size fits all" and "average being the ideal" is BS, as what you really end up with is one size that fits NONE. The USAF learned this lesson the hard way at the start of the jet age! They made cockpits that fit an average size of their entire pilot base, only to find out that half the pilots were crammed in uncomfortable and the other half couldn't reach all the controls...

    It's a flaw that marketers, politicians, religious leaders, and scam artists know far too well, as they use that idea of an average or ideal to herd the masses around like the sheep they are. See the LIE of share; even something as simple as web browser usage share is full of manure on the assumptions certain groups tried to use to take on certain opposition. The neckbeard pre-hipster Firefox fanboys for example spent most of the time from around 2006 to 2012 up down left right claiming there were less IE users because Microsoft's market share in the browser arena had dropped from nearly 95% in 2004 to the 25% or so of today (depending on who's numbers you use it ranges from 12% which is bullshit low to 52% which is bullshit high)... so sure, let's say they lost 70% market share.

    What makes the idea that M$ lost browser users absolute 100% grade A farm fresh BULL? Simple, the pool size changed. In Feb 2004 when IE had its peak there were ~745 million people online. As of today in 2016 there are approximately 3.5 BILLION Internet users. Now I'm no mathemagician, but I'm pretty sure that 95% of 745 million is ~705 million, and 25% of 3.5 billion is ~875 million. So while yes, they lost SHARE, they grew their user base 24%. They haven't "lost" Jack ****, they simply failed to grow into new markets the way others have!

    It's the same thing people did to Opera saying it held 3% for so many years, never growing its user-base... when 3% of a pool that keeps growing IS growth! Wasn't until they told that loyal user base to sod off with the train wreck that is ChrOpera that they took a real nose-dive!

    The other flaw is that the people skilled enough to do it properly, usually have done so -- and been successful doing so -- and that's WHY they don't share it! You don't see Craigslist sharing THEIR script, do you? You don't see Google sharing their search engine... You don't see Amazon or E-Bay sharing their code bases a whole lot do you?

    You don't give your competition a leg-up! Hell, I think deep down that's why Twitter shared bootstrap, so as to sabotage the rest of the world.

    Simply put, if you can make a system that can take on and reach parity with a major successful site, why the hell would you share it for $250 a pop maybe two or three times a week until you hit market saturation, when you could just have the successful site making ten times that a day?

    That's why the people who build sites JUST to 'build it up and then flip it" are some of the sleaziest shits out there -- places like Flippa being genuine "Hives of scum and villainy" since if ANY of those sites were ACTUALLY worth the money, why the hell isn't the creator keeping it?!? (especially when said sites are like a month or two old!) Same goes for all these idiotic nonsensical websites that CLAIM to magically be able to tell you another sites traffic and worth; just how the **** do they know what YOUR traffic is? Simple answer? THEY DON'T!!! THEY"RE PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF THEIR ARSE!!! Alexa, Worth of Web, SiteValue -- they're all 100% unfounded bullshit based on absolutely ZERO facts. They don't have access to your server logs! They don't have access to Google's search results or tracking either!!! Just where do these alleged numbers come from? Their ARSE!!!

    But again, there's money to be made PRETENDING said places actually mean something, so magically they do to a lot of people -- and just DARING to even SUGGEST that all of this stuff might be illegitimate is like trying to convince a creationist they're full of it. Their own hope and belief so blinds them to the facts in front of them thanks to a confirmation bias created by ritualistic indoctrination and the use of the seven classical propaganda techniques, that no amount of facts or information can overcome a cognitive dissonance deeply rooted in -- to borrow from Eisenhower -- apathy, ignorance, and wishful thinking.

    In that way, arguing with fans of certain pieces of web technologies -- particularly off the shelf solutions -- no matter how badly their choices are screwing them, ends up a bit like trying to argue reality with a cultist.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
    deathshadow, Dec 3, 2016 IP
  5. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    163
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #5
    Since you plan on spending time and money making a better mousetrap for your own use, you might consider putting a price tag on it and selling it to others once you get it working properly.
     
    mmerlinn, Dec 3, 2016 IP
  6. LAViking

    LAViking Peon

    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #6
    Deathshadow, it's quite obvious you know what you're talking about. If you have a few minutes and wouldn't mind, could you outline your thoughts on how someone should approach finding a developer to build a classifieds site similar to Craigslist? I have neither the PHP skills nor the desire to learn HTML. I just have what I consider to be a good idea and the financial resources necessary to pay someone to bring it about. I've got a few friends who are coders. But, I would consider it invaluable if you would be willing to share some of the Do's and Dont's, given your obvious experience in the field. Thanks in advance if you care to share.
     
    LAViking, Jan 5, 2017 IP
  7. Dux Ducis

    Dux Ducis Peon

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    #7
    Flynax? Imagine the worst support...multiply it with 1000 ...and maybe you are close enough to reality.

    Don't use it even if they give it to you for free.

    About geocore i don't know.
     
    Dux Ducis, Jan 14, 2017 IP
  8. Flynax

    Flynax Active Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    #8
    This thread unfairly trashes our product and at one point, a ‘scammer’ word is used. To see that we’re constantly working on our software, simply take a look at our blog, social network accounts, script update logs and 78 plugins we’ve released. You may also take a look at the website and its content, demo pages and mobile apps in both Google Play and App Store, hundreds of testimonials both on our site and many other review portals. Does it look like fake?

    You must have noticed that the thread started with a logical question regarding the choice of the script, worded peacefully and nicely. However, after Deathshadow’s reply, the topic starter suddenly went mad and started using vulgar words, such as bullshit and others, which Deathshadow obviously likes so much. We would agree that Deathshadow is quite a speaker, but why take his lead, unless you are working together.

    *IT Guru says that things aren’t as bad;*

    Having gone through Deathshadow’s verbal diarrhea, we see that he is focusing on a such an unimportant thing as <style> tag body of the demo site. Seriously? Is it really worth dwelling on these little things? We have moved the demo tools styles into the head and all of the words mean nothing now. He also mentioned an incorrect viewpoint tag, which allegedly prevents from zooming in/out on mobile devices. He probably hasn’t checked it himself because the zoom in/out works perfectly on mobiles. We can of course go through his every comment, but we don’t see any reason why we should do it.

    *Calling Flynax… no answer or sleepy voice on the other end;*

    We don’t conceal the fact that both of our technical departments are located outside of US and in different time zone, in a different part of the globe, just like many American companies tend to outsource staff from different countries to offer more competitive prices and get better returns on investments. With this in mind, sometimes your phone call will not be answered, but be sure that you will always get a prompt and professional reply to your email, which is more important, because this type of communication (emails and tickets) in the IT sphere is more widespread and preferred.

    When we see aggression towards us, we never respond with aggression on our part, especially in times of Black PR, when threads like this may appear from time to time. Quite the opposite, we get inspiration from them and sometimes they help pinpoint our weaknesses, which we quickly fix. This year our company is celebrating a 10 year anniversary and we hope that marketing specialists who engage in black PR to stain our reputation will at least stop using the word ‘scammer’ as it looks unreasonable and even silly.
     
    Flynax, Jan 31, 2017 IP
    qwikad.com likes this.
  9. Elator

    Elator Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #9
    I've read this thread and I'm trying to understand how one judges the script and its aptitude for success. I'm not here to defend or trash a particular script, rather attempt to find logic.
    ineedrealanswers - You start the thread by asking forum users to help you compare the two scripts Geocore and Flynax because it seems that you have made your decision and need to make a choice between the two, right? Although a bit later down the thread, not only do you abruptly change the topic, but also start trashing all of classifieds scripts and wishing death to their creators. I'm just trying to understand what made you turn from a potential customer to a hater, who sounds like a kid, whose favourite toy has been taken away.

    Are you for real? Stoning and hanging GEOCORE software developers just because they didn't answer the phone??!!! I've dealt with different software companies, most of them are outside US, mostly India or a bunch of other countries where workforce is cheaper, it's business. If you want an answer just shoot GEOCORE an email and submit a ticket, you'll have more luck then. If you want to deal with a company that is located and operates in a US office, be prepared to pay three or even five times as much, even then, I don't garantuee they'll answer the phone any time you call. It's not 911 - what's your emergency. Your expectations for support are unreasonably high, my friend.

    How did GEOCORE or any other company scam you exactly? Any proof for your loud statements? Or perhaps you think 'not answering a phone' when you're calling is considered scamming? have you tried other options? Email or live chat? Have you tried calling Apple support or any other major US company? After ages of waiting for an operator to answer, you realize that it's much easier and faster to submit a ticket or send an email.

    So, in your words, all classifieds scripts currently in the market are bullshit. Isn't that a bold statement? I may understand when you're trashing a particular product or a particular software company, but how can you claim that over 30 different scripts turned out bullshit? Maybe these are not the scripts? Maybe your business idea failed and you decided to take your anger out on the software vendors?

    With your expectations, you are much better off hiring a dedicated developer (maybe a team) who will always be at your call and will report only to you and will attend only to your product. I don't like it when people resort to generalizations and I especially don't like when people make bold statements, none of which is backed with at least a little evidence. It seems like it's something deeply personal to you, but it's not an excuse to trash all of software developers just because you think they're not up to your standards.
     
    Elator, Feb 1, 2017 IP
    qwikad.com likes this.
  10. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #10
    Looks have nothing to do with it, unless you don't understand accessibility -- which whoever skinned your site clearly does not the same way they clearly don't know enough HTML to be building websites.

    When the result is many times the code needed for even the simplest of front ends, it does start to reek a bit of fly-by-night. Honestly MOST commercial packages at this point have a hint of that stench where it's more about putting the saddle on people who don't know any better than it is about delivering a quality product.

    One of many such minor things that eventually by the time you're even a third of the way through the code begs the question "do the people who wrote this even know what HTML is?!?" -- on top of the illegible colour contrasts, fixed metric fonts, and other front-end failings that tell users with accessibility needs to go **** themselves and makes it clear your "designers" probably don't know enough about design to be designing anything, you have code under the hood that reeks of "semantics, what's that?", endless pointless DIV for nothing, endless pointless classes for nothing, gibberish to nonexistant use of numbered headings, lists around obvious non-lists, lack of lists around obvious lists, broken meta, pointless meta, nonsensical mish-mash of new and old code standards, lack of media targets, X-UA crap that should only be needed if your code is twenty years out of date, static scripting in the markup, static style in the markup, presentational use of classes, span doing numbered headings job, lack of block level wrappers on block level content resulting in run-on sentences...

    I mean you know it's trash when a search engine, screen reader, or braille reader would read the "motors" section as:

    Motors
    68
    AccessoriesBoatsCarsMotorbikes & ScootersPartsTrucks & Special Vehicles

    Since there's no block level containers or whitespace to even indicate those are separate words, and inline-level phase elements like anchor and span do not imply that meaning. I for one was unware that "AccessoriesBoatsCarsMotorbikes" was all one word... but that's how it's coded... Just like how the heading for that section is coded as a span instead of a heading, meaning there is no subsection... that's an H2 or H3's job -- probably a h3 since that section should have a heading so it's not part of "featured" -- of course even the featured headign is coded as this herpafreakingderp:

    
    <section class="content_block no-style  listings_carousel">
    	<h3>Featured</h3>	<div>
    
    Code (markup):
    If you're going to use <section> that is automatically an H1... if you're NOT going to use section and use a DIV (aka the accessible version since not one blasted UA supports <section> in a meaningful manner right now) then the H3 would be inappropriate since there's no H2 for it to indicate the start of a subsection of, much less an H1 to indicate what EVERYTHING on the site is a subsection of. Reeks of someone who knows not one blasted thing about HTML just sleazing in a header because "derp I wantsies textz n tats size and weights" instead of using headings to create an accessible document structure.

    ... which until you can use numbered headings properly to create a logical document, you really have zero business adding HTML 5's pointlessly redundant and ultimately useless <section>, <article>, <aside>, <nav>, <main>, <header>, or <footer>!

    It is when every single line gets worse and worse and worse... one little crack here or there is one thing, damned near every line of code being non-semantic inaccessible trash? There are more things wrong with your demo page before <body> is even opened than most sites have in their entire document!

    ... and if you're not seeing that you don't know enough about HTML, CSS, or the WCAG to be building websites for other people!

    Except of course that it doesn't zoom in any device I have here (admittedly, there's no crApple in the mix) becuase that's what "user-scalable=no" and "maximum-scale=1" HUFFING MEANS!!! -- do not let the user scale the page and do not let it zoom in respectively!!!!!

    DERP!

    Probably because given what your demo alone vomits up you don't know enough about HTML, CSS, or accessibility to argue the point. JUST as the demo code clearly says your development team doesn't know enough about those things to be creating front ends!

    I will cut you a break on this because we're in the age of international exchange -- and I've got non-24 sleep wake syndrome so **** only knows what time of day it is for ME. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to be operating on US Eastern Standard time. To that end e-mail or contact forms should be the preferred method of communication, just as instant messaging can be many many times more productive than voice communication during the development cycle -- if for no other reason than having an actual hardcopy of the conversation as a reference.

    BUT -- at the same time, callbacks and response times are important. I'm reminded of Digital Research. If you don't know who they were, there's a reason for that. If you do know who they were you know why I mention them. Biggest dropped ball in computer history and their lack of response was slow enough for Gates to walk over, pick up that ball, dust it off, and take a liesurely stroll across the goal line with it.

    ... and to that end:
    If you're dealing internationally, a LOT of businesses in the west still have a distrust of doing business by e-mail. STRANGE as that sounds given how long it's been in place, particularly if you're an IT guy. A LOT of companies still have grey-hairs at the top of the ladder, and would much prefer a returned phone call than dealing with e-mails; particularly given most such folks wouldn't know a spam filter from a coffee filter making their inbox a veritable unnavigable quagmire! Here in the colonies if you don't reply to a phone call, AND you're in an eastern nation of dubious reputation, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be assumed you're a fraud.

    With people who write code, support code, and maintain the systems yes... with people who just want to buy something that works, well... not so much. Quite the opposite in fact. If you're making an off the shelf script unless your target audience is people who don't need it because they have the skills to right their own, that's a VERY bad assumption to make on your part; PARTICULARLY if you are going to be doing business in the west.

    Well, that's good because you have a lot of them... which don't seem to have been fixed. At all.

    ... as evidenced by a demo page sleazing out .. well, now I can't even point out how many megabytes of nothing it was vomiting up since FF is reporting an infinite redirect error on your site. But again it was megabytes in hundreds of files to deliver single digit K of plaintext and barely a half dozen content images.

    JUST like your website proper, where if you don't know what's wrong with this:
    
    <body class="home-page extended-header"> <div class="main-wrapper"> <!-- page header --> <header class="page-header header-home clip"> <div class="point1"> <div class="header-nav"> <div class="logo"> <a title="Classifieds Software, Classifieds Script" href="https://www.flynax.com/"><img alt="Classifieds Software, Classifieds Script" src="https://www.flynax.com/templates/flynax/img/blank.gif" /></a> </div> <nav class="support-menu"><ul><li><a class="grey-light chat" title="Chat with pre-sales support operator" href="javascript:psKDsnow();"><span>Pre-sales </span>chat</a></li>
    
    Code (markup):
    (582 bytes)

    You probably shouldn't be making websites for other people yet!

    Just to show you what I mean, that should probably be written as:

    
    <body>
    <div id="top"><div class="widthWrapper">
    	<h1><a href="/">Flynax</a></h1>
    	<ul id="supportMenu">
    		<li><a href="actualLink.html" id="preSales">Pre-sales chat</a></li>
    
    Code (markup):
    (179 bytes)

    With gilder-levin or webfonts for the site heading, an actual link in the href for non-scripting functionality for users that either block or have scripting unavailable (it's called accessibility, you have none), with the ID in there for the script to target to add its handler... unless of course that were to be a scripting only element, in which case that entire LI has ZERO huffing business in your markup and should be added BY the scripting! (with maybe a <noscript> to warn you need scripting to chat?)

    Remember, if you can't make a fully functional website without JavaScript first, you likely have zero malfing business adding scripting to it!

    Bottom line, a quarter the HTML. The willy-nilly use of tags, attributes that serve zero legitimate purpose (like the redundant titles)... the list goes on and on screaming that whoever wrote your websites doesn't know enough HTML to be writing websites!!!. It's really sad when your developers are sleazing out minified code that's three to five times larger than any qualified developer would use in the same scenario WITHOUT minification! Hence the ridiculous 37k of markup to deliver 5.8k of plaintext and a seven or eight content images, basically somewhere between three to four times the HTML for such a site should even have... mated to your obviously having let some PSD jockey under the DELUSION they know what design is spank it all over the place -- assuming of course again that it's not just a blind copy of Every ***ing bootcrap site ever

    Hence the ape-shit ridiculous 768k in 25 files doing the job of probably a sixth that making up your primary website -- whilst flipping the double-bird at any and all users with accessibility needs, search engines, and pretty much every specification and guideline related to site-building!

    Ah yes, the assumption and fallacy that you must be some marketer trying to discredit you instead of a developer sick of cleaning up after messes like the one your product makes. The last refuge of those typically unqualified to defend much less fix any problems being pointed out... much akin to claiming today's protestors are "paid shills"... always leaving me wondering "Where do I apply to get paid for doing this?"

    Since nobody could possibly just be voicing their opinion unless it was some sort of marketing attack. RIGHT.

    Seriously, if you're ten years deep and don't even know half the stuff I'm pointing out, it doesn't speak well of your legitimacy, and makes it sound like you're more interested in marketspeak buzzwords and preying on the ignorance of those who don't know any better.

    Though that seems to be the trend across all such softwares at this point, where the companies behind them lumber on using two decade out of date codebases that were never correct in the first place even by decade old standards... coasting on name, reputation, and ignorance of their clients.

    Which is why right now from where I sit, MOST of the IT industry is run and dominated by sleazy scam artists -- so don't feel like I'm singling you out for that distinction.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 8, 2017 IP
    mmerlinn and malky66 like this.
  11. Flynax

    Flynax Active Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    #11
    Thank you for taking your time to point out the flaws in our code. However, we would like make it clear that it’s easy to split hairs and nitpick any line of code, especially when you don’t look at the big picture. With time and a little effort, you may find faults in source code virtually on any website.

    We admit that there are some lines of code in our site, which may be optimized, although we don’t think this is of critical importance. We are aware of our weaknesses and we’re constantly working to enhance and make our script better for our customers.
     
    Flynax, Feb 9, 2017 IP
  12. Elator

    Elator Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #12
    So, you're saying, and I quote "all such softwares use two decade out of date codebase" - that basically means that currently, there is NO classifieds software on the market that is not crap? You really think that out of hundreds of companies on the market there is no decent script? Since you took your time examining Flynax code, I'm wondering why you didn't do the same for GEOCORE, because the thread is about comparing the two scripts, but it seems you're giving too much negative attention to one particular script and say nothing about the other. That may sound biased and some may think you're engaging in Black PR.

    That is a really bold statement and it is not true at all.

    And since you're so good at critisizing the code, design, usability, and navigation and claim that most of the IT is scam, can you give us an example of a product you have created? Because, your background says
    I'm quoting this from your personal website (deathshadow.com) - which by the way doesn't seem to me as the epitome of design and navigation, and it especially doesn't look like the website designed by a veteran of software development and graphic arts. let me quote you again here:


    You're saying that 'all such software companies' use an outdated codebase - and at the same time, your website to me, looks like it was made in the 80-s and it seems like you don't practice what you preach. I am not talking about code and HTML, because I'm not an expert in these things, although from a user point, your site doesn't look credible at all.
    Anyway, with three decades of experience in software development, please share with us your products, your script or any piece of work that we may praise and look up to. Obviously, if you are so good at trashing others, you must have created something you're proud of, and we ask to see it.
     
    Elator, Feb 10, 2017 IP
  13. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #13
    I've never seen one, but to be frank I don't believe in off the shelf solutions to site development BECAUSE they are most always little more than taking that mallet to drive that square peg into the round hole. Out of box they most never meet the needs of the client without so much massive customization you would be better off starting over from scratch. It's a sleazy shortcut and IF you take that route you have to expect that the result will not meet accessibility norms, cost more to host, be harder to maintain, and generally rake you over the coals.

    You buy off the rack don't be surprised if you get laughed at in the receiving line at the palace.

    PARTICULALRY when the default template -- and therefor every template based on it -- REEKS of developer ineptitude and ignorance on the most basic aspects of accessibility and standards. Pixel metric design and fonts, illegible colour contrasts, presentational images and goofy animated nonsense that gets between the user and what's actually important -- CONTENT, etc, etc, etc...

    The moment you see font-size declared in px where it's hitting flow text? BOOM, that person has ZERO business writing websites... which is why:

    Means you are completely unqualified to even be offering criticism of anything I am saying here... since that means you know Jack about accessibility, Jack about semantics, Jack about logical document structure, leaving you woefully ill-equipped to offer an opinion about ANYONE's website!

    Billions of people are willing to kill each-other over differences of opinion about some magical man in the sky... doesn't mean any of them are correct. That's the "2.1 billion people can't be wrong" argument certain groups use, aka the propaganda technique of bandwagon; failing to ask "well what about the other 4 billion people on the planet?" Don't try pulling the "sheer numbers" fallacy with me, I can quote you the USAF/US Army Psychological Operations field manual from memory. That **** doesn't work on me! Unlike say... the mouth-breathers who believe in all the rubbish people are throwing around these days with the word "alternative" in front of it.

    "For people who know nothing about websites BY people who know nothing about websites" isn't a recipe for success! There's a reason you can bet your sweet bippy Craigslist, Amazon, and E-Bay aren't using off the shelf scripts... and when they try it usually blows up in their face. See jQueery or Twitter bootcrap!

    I did in my very first post, the only reason I went further into depth on Flynax was the fact that -- and big props to them for taking the time to do this -- they responded here. So I responded in kind. Geocore has a rep come in to contest what I said in post #2 of this thread, I'll gladly give them a similar breakdown.

    ThemeForest, TemplateMonster, Wordpress, Bootstrap, jQuery, Codeignitor, Xenforo, vBulletin -- certainly seems to be true from where I'm sitting. Sleazy scam artists taking advantage of people who don't know any better with bloated, buggy, broken, inaccessible practices that any rational developer wouldn't jab with a 40 foot cattle prod!

    Well, how about first you look at my site that's actually about web development:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com

    or one of my sites with a bit more serious a bent:

    http://www.ewiusb.com

    Instead of my personal site about 1980's retrocomputing, which is what makes:

    Such absolute comedy gold. Take the time to notice that the CONTENT is about writing software for the Commodore 64 and original IBM 5150. You know, computers FROM the '80's... gah, I'd hate to see what you'd have thought of the original layout that was intentionally meant to look like you were on a 1980's monochrome monitor, right down to the scanlines.

    I also don't do off the shelf cookie cutter development packages, I've always been a custom solution to fit the client kind of developer. It's the difference between off the rack and bespoke tailoring.

    If you don't know code, well then what do you know about non-code topics like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines? Graceful degradation? Content delivery norms? Logical document structure? Professional writing? Difference between Business, Conversational, Authoritarian, or Documentative writing/speech styles?

    .. and yes, I admit I use conversational far, far too often. If it was good enough for Clemens, it's good enough for me.

    It SOUNDS like you are exactly the type of person the scam artists out there love, because you know so little about websites you're the perfect candidate for them to saddle up and take for a ride! If all you can think of is the screen you happen to be seated in front of or what some marketing expert packs you full of? Might as well be that fresh faced 15 year old boy tried as an adult and sent to general population the way most of the barkers and snake-oil peddlers hocking these off the shelf solutions will drool over you.

    See the sites I linked above... Take the time to read some of my articles. Such as:

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/whats_wrong_with_YOUR_website_index
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/progressive_enhancement
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/article/HTML_CSS_and_JS_frameworks

    Oh wait, my bad, the content of those articles would be WAY over your head since by your own admission you don't know code, begging the question whiskey tango foxtrot are you even doing in this thread?

    Other work, well... I don't think you'd be interested in a customized $10K an install double entry accounting package that I stopped advertising due to health issues not letting me keep up with new users... Likewise my creation of 3d models for commercial game releases and print media artwork isn't really relevant.

    That and my contract work the past decade is kind of hush hush given it was related to helping certain companies and government organizations avoid lawsuits and fined in the UK for failing to meet all these standards and accessibility minimums I've mentioned. You ever help large companies out during a lawsuit? You'll be drowned in red tape, C&D's, and binding contracts with some really nasty penalties if you even MENTION the parties involved. Fun stuff.

    ... and part of what led me to the conclusion the industry is run by sleazy scam artists; since I've been on the short list of who to call to clean up the messes the dirtbags or just plain ignorant twaddles vomit up and have the unmitigated gall to call a website.

    Something that likely means not a thing to you since you probably don't even know what the WCAG is, why its important, and why companies and organizations in certain countries can in fact be fined by their government or dragged into court over failing to meet it!

    Which is why if you knew the first damned thing about accessibility, you'd know that THESE:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/deathshadow_com.png
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/ewiusb.png

    Or even this: (hey, at least Flynax's home page didn't screw this up)
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/flynax.png

    Are VASTLY superior to these:
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/geodesicsolutions.png
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/geocoreDemo.png
    (this is where Flynax is dropping the ball)
    http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/documentOutlines/flynaxDemo.png

    ... and if you don't know why, you don't know enough about websites or accessibility norms to be flapping your yap about it! In fact, all those 'missing headings' and nonsensical nesting of heading orders is basically telling users with accessibility needs to go *** themselves and are PROOF POSITIVE that whoever wrote the HTML for those pages has ZERO DAMNED BUSINESS WRITING HTML!

    ... and yes, accessibly designed pages with logical document structure, semantic markup, and graceful degradation in mind can start to look a bit plain and retro -- lacking in the arsty animations, avoiding over-use of pointless presentational images and so forth. That's because they operate on the CONTENT FIRST principle, something the artists under the DELUSION they know what design is know exactly two things about -- and Jack left town.

    There's a reason Craigslist should be held up as an example of good design -- even if it makes most "web designers" peeper shrink in so far it shoots out their pooper -- and even with the handful of accessibility shortcomings. It's also what set Google on the path of creating their "Materials Design" standards to flatten and simplify UI so as to improve UX...

    Though it's kind of sad that's starting to drift away from that original concept as the artsy-fartsy types start pissing on it. See how G+ took it so far it has fallen into the pit of "false simplicity" rendering their UI agonizing to try and use. THEN they wonder why it can't compete with Facebook... :/

    Laughable since with Google's pockets if they'd just bother paying attention to usability they should be able to pimp-slap Facebook into what FB did to MySpace... but someday someone will come along with the deep investment pockets and development savvy to do it. Good first steps would be to step the **** away from the JavaScript and bother meeting WCAG minimums.

    Side note, we are worried by your referring to yourself in the third person, as we are aware that's one of the early signs of a developing sociopathy. :D

    I say, I say... that's a joke son. I made a funny son and you’re not laughin’... I keep pitchen' 'em and you keep missen' 'em!
     
    deathshadow, Feb 10, 2017 IP
    malky66, mmerlinn and PoPSiCLe like this.
  14. mmerlinn

    mmerlinn Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    163
    Best Answers:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #14
    FIRST impressions DO count. My first impression looking at only your main page (https://www.flynax.com/) makes me want to VOMIT.

    I see text that is UNREADABLE with some letters that are jet BLACK, some letters that are an almost invisible GRAY, and some letters part GRAY and part BLACK all on a white background side-by-side in the SAME WORD. How in hell is someone supposed to read that TRASH?

    At the top I see a PARTIAL TOTALLY UNREADABLE menu with the left part of the menu being covered up with a map and other garbage. Even the map sucks as only the bottom half shows AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SCROLL UP TO SEE THE REST OF THE MAP. To the right I see a BARELY readable LIGHT ORANGE on WHITE that looks like it MIGHT be "Order now" although I don't see why any one in his right mind would EVER want to click it.

    Scrolling halfway down I find that you have a HUGE WHITE BLANK SPACE with NO content. Why in hell do you need that? Don't you realize that huge blank spaces STOP PEOPLE FROM SCROLLING FURTHER? That white space ALONE reeks of developer STUPIDITY to the Nth degree!

    Being the glutton for punishment that I am, I FORCED myself to scroll further, even all the way to the bottom.

    HORROR of HORRORS! I THINK there is a list of links there, BUT THE FONT IS GRAY ON WHITE and so TINY that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what they are for without actually clicking on them.

    I hate vomiting, so I did not click on any links to see what DEMONS that you had hiding on them. However, based on your main page (FIRST IMPRESSIONS DO COUNT) I am very POSITIVE that AT BEST they are just as VOMIT-INDUCING as the main page.

    I did not open the hood like @deathshadow did, but if your code for the main page is as bad as how your VOMIT-INDUCING main page looks, then I believe that since you are not capable of employing qualified people to properly design your main page, you are also NOT CAPABLE OF EMPLOYING QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO PROPERLY DESIGN the products (more vomit-inducing garbage????) that you are peddling to the GULLIBLE. EVERYTHING I see on your main page leads me to think that you are indeed just another "SCAMMER" out to fleece gullible sheep.

    Finally, "hundreds of testimonials" mean absolutely NOTHING. Based on what I see those testimonials mean one of two things. First, YOU wrote them yourself and/or hired someone to write them AND/OR second, they were written by gullible sheep that you fleeced that do not know any better.
     
    mmerlinn, Feb 10, 2017 IP
  15. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #15
    ... and to be fair, Geodesic Solutions site is'nae a lick better:

    http://geodesicsolutions.com/geocore-software.html

    Since it has the same woes of illegible colour contrasts, fixed metric fonts (though it has a few sections of dynamic mashed in resulting in a broken layout), etc, etc... the effectively invisible white on light blue menu? the uselessly small fonts in the chart sending you diving for the zoom only to have the layout fall apart miserably, images doing text's job, illegible blue on black in the footer, goofy space wasting banner header area up top where everything just seems to have been slopped into the page willy-nilly... again a site that just a casual surface inspection screams "WCAG, what's that?!?"

    In the case of both on a cursory visual inspection ALONE they reek of the person building the site not knowing enough about websites to be telling others how to do so since they fail to meet accessibility minimums. Hence why such pages are useless on screen readers, useless on braille readers, and likely a giant middle finger to search if anyone was actually competing with them...

    Which laughably of the two, Flynax's site does better since "Classified website script" on the big G doesn't even pull up Geodesic's site until like page five... while Flynax comes up #1... though coming up #1 often speaks to scamming the system more than legitimacy... strange as that sounds.

    ... and of course that's why when you pop the bonnet to have a look at what's going on, you are confronted with a laundry list of how not to build a website and utter/complete ignorance of what HTML is, why it exists, or what it is for!

    See such incredibly idiotic halfwit dumbass rubbish as:

    
    <body class="is_chrome v_55 b_arial h_centurygothic id_131 rev_208">
    	<div id="hiddenlogin" style="display: none;">
    		<div class="innerwrap">
    			<div class="grid"><form action="https://geodesicsolutions.com/geocore-software.html" method="post" name="login" id="login-form" ><input placeholder="Username or E-Mail" id="modlgn_username" type="text" name="username" class="inputbox" alt="username" size="18" /> <input placeholder="Password" id="modlgn_passwd" type="password" name="password" class="inputbox" size="18" alt="password" /> <input type="submit" name="Submit" class="button" value="Login" /> <input type="hidden" name="task" value="user.login" /><input type="hidden" name="option" value="com_users" /><input type="hidden" name="silent" value="true" /><input type="hidden" name="return" value="aHR0cDovL2dlb2Rlc2ljc29sdXRpb25zLmNvbS9nZW9jb3JlLXNvZnR3YXJlLmh0bWw=" /><input type="hidden" name="6fb0228e1bce5d645f311ad6b460b3cc" value="1" /></form></div>
    		</div>
    	</div>
    <div id="pagewrap">
           <div id="header" class="image">
    			<div class="innerwrap">
    									<div id="topnav">
                                <div id="top_wrap" class="">
    	<nav id="top" class="grid_12">
    		<style type="text/css">
    	#item-220 { display: none; }
    </style>
    
    Code (markup):
    Which is another poster-child for "If you don't know what's wrong with that, STOP MAKING WEBSITES!"
     
    deathshadow, Feb 11, 2017 IP
  16. PoPSiCLe

    PoPSiCLe Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    4,622
    Likes Received:
    717
    Best Answers:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    420
    #16
    Sometimes, I really wonder what kind of setup you have while testing :D I really do. Because none of that shows up here. It's perfectly readable, there are no distinct white-space monstrosities, and there are no overlapping content, even when I force a reload for mobile view, or just resize the content-area in the browser. So I'm just wondering... what are you viewing this on, and what type of custom JS/CSS are you using?
     
    PoPSiCLe, Feb 14, 2017 IP
    qwikad.com likes this.
  17. qwikad.com

    qwikad.com Prominent Member Affiliate Manager

    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    990
    Best Answers:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    350
    #17
    Thank you @PoPSiCLe, because when I read the post, a couple days ago, I was wondering the same thing. Shows just fine here. The only thing that could use a lighter font color are the links at the very top (PRE SALE CHAT, etc.).

    @Flynax Don't worry, you're not going to lose any sales because of this thread. The 5 people that happen to see it may not even be interested in buying a classified software anyway. However, if you guys can't provide quality customer support by phone just discontinue it. Let the users / potential buyers email you. People seem to be more patient when they email you, even though they have to wait a few hours for a response, however, they'll get all uptight and pissed off if you don't answer your phone immediately. Just eliminate that nonsense and you're almost guaranteed to have more sales.

     
    qwikad.com, Feb 14, 2017 IP
  18. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #18
    It just means you're perfectly sighted, or have your brightness up higher, or are on a IPS.

    The entire top-right menu for example, is FAR below accessibility minimums for what's behind it. The text is declared as #8e8e8e, a middle color that is effectively IMPOSSIBLE to use for text and meet WCAG 2.0 AAA minimums, and you'd pretty much need a solid black background to meet AA. The (bandwidth wasting) image it is over runs from #323941 to #1F222B behind it, and by the time cleartype is done with that goofy thin-glyph "fireSans' webfont garbage results in bars and slabs down as low as #4C6E7A

    Plug those numbers into a compliance tester like:
    http://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/

    You can see that even the best combination -- the declared colour (which isn't being delivered) over the darkest part of that background fails to even meet WCAG 2.0 AA minimums, much less the AAA that goofy font wants.

    We convert to a proper luma and the average bar luma is 91, and the DARKEST part of the background is 34... that's only 22% spread, far short of the 50% for 2.0 AA large.

    Simply put, if you don't meet WCAG 2.0 AAA for that combination of font and colours, it is likely INVISIBLE to more than 30% of the population... and the combination used there? Probably closer to HALF the population cannot see it.

    ... and it gets WORSE when you get into the pastel coloured sections on white down below in the massive expanse of "whitespace for nothing", and again the goofy "thin glyph" webfont taking what should be a perfectly legible #111111 on white, and under clearType and freeType gutting all the way down to an eye-strain inducing #3A9EC9 to #B37272 depending on where the subpixel hinting is hammering it... which after a bit of luma math ends up with slabs and bars with luma of 160 or higher, again FAR short of the WCAG 2.0 AA minimums for LARGE fonts...

    Which is why we have the math and the tools to check it, and guidelines based on actual research to compare it against -- which is why colour choices like those on that page are an EPIC FAILURE at web design... no matter how many Apple IPS using Photoshop jockies cream their panties over the concept!

    Know how I'm often saying "just because the site is fast for you means not a damned thing!" -- well, just because it's legible to YOU... You cannot trust your own eyes for that, you have to do the math.

    Y = 0.299 * R + 0.587 * G + 0.114 * B

    ... and if the difference between foreground and background on a complete rendering (aka it can actually have the bars and slab reach the declared colour) isn't at least 50%, you fail. With a thin-glyph font and modern subpixel hinting? Up that to 70% or more!

    Accessibility 101.. and something anyone who calls themselves a "designer" should huffing know, and if they don't then they're just an artist under the DELUSION they know what design is!

    I could probably actually use the site, but I know the signs that would mean for a lot of users -- like mmerlin -- it would guarantee and instant bounce thanks to the accessibility failings. I wouldn't be surprised if it causes eye-strain for at least half the visitors and for around a third of visitors is utterly useless with pretty much all that grey text over that background at the top being effectively invisible -- something supported by the MATH. There's probably around 10% of users for whom even the #111 text on white halfway down the page is an illegible mess -- and that's the choice of webfont's fault.

    ... though it probably looks fine to crApple users since their "make everything bold and blur the shit out of it" eyesore font rendering actually makes crappy fonts like that one look good -- while butchering perfectly good fonts from other platforms.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 17, 2017 IP
  19. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #19
    I've heard worse advice. If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.
     
    deathshadow, Feb 17, 2017 IP
  20. deathshadow

    deathshadow Acclaimed Member

    Messages:
    8,442
    Likes Received:
    1,511
    Best Answers:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    515
    #20
    Just to better explain what @mmerlin is probably seeing, I took that part I was talking about with what SHOULD be a legible colour (#111) on white with the webfont that's ruining it, screencapped, made a zoomed copy, then a proper emissive colourspace LUMA (different from most paint program's convert to greyscale), then made a copy below the first applying filters for UV blurring, lends deformation of colour common to people wearing modern eyeglasses that are actually concentric rings of microscopic Fresnel lenses... to try and give you an idea how bad BAD can get.

    http://www.cutcodedown.com/images/webFontBad.png

    in that picture, the top half is what cleartype on windows is doing to that webfont. Pretty far cry from that #111 colour isn't it? The bottom half is adjusted so that those of you with the perfect colourspace vision, can experience what about 30% or so of the population (depending on geography) sees on that same page.

    ... and that's just one of MANY possible combinations and issues. There are browser extensions like "colorblinding" that can let you choose from a variety of different filters to let you see what others would see if you don't have these impairments. Like with my vision not being the best -- but not having actual colourblindness issues, if I use "colorblinding" to emulate "blue-weak tritanomaly" that top menu line with the "contact us" on it? Disappears! The white on light blue buttons would be illegible to anyone with protanopic or tritanopic anomalies.

    But again if you just follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines you won't have these problems!
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2017
    deathshadow, Feb 17, 2017 IP