| Page: 1 2 | Rating: Unrated [0] |
New Site
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 11:07am |
 Coolness: 340400 | yeah i could to the hand-pointer thing, but personally i find it ugly.. :P
i mean in a regular app does the mouse change when you move your mouse over a button? as for the JS-relance thing, i've argued this up and down over at the dev-shed and won. haha, ALL major websites these days put heavy reliance on JS, and all major browsers support JS properly.. cept maybe IE, which has it's own functions.. which allows me to make sure everything works.. i find moving a lot of the load off the server onto the client is a *great* idea, i've done calculations, JS vs. Non-JS versions of my site.. the JS version takes about 10% the bandwidth the non-JS version would take. which allows for shitloads more users to use the site.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» FRANKB replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 11:28am |
 Coolness: 104070 | it says i dont have permission to view the site? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 11:37am |
 Coolness: 194760 | well this is the web not an app.. people are used to hand pointers and i dont see why they should be abolished, theyre a good indicator of an element's clickability
would you really want people to click all over the screen to see if something works? js wise, im not gonna get into an argument.. but answer me this: would your main site functionalities (browsing acceleration and cosmetics aside) still work for someone with disabled js? sure its tempting to make use of the client's computing power and it does decrease server load, but theres a fine line between real-time functionality plus improved handling capacity versus coherency of your site's presentation independently of the user who's browsing it. i guess it depends on your target viewers more than anything, but regardless of what it is, i for one would like as many people to see and use my shit in the form it was intented as possible... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 11:50am |
| Coolness: 340400 | Originally posted by NEUROMYTH...
it says i dont have permission to view the site? [ www.cslacker.com ] not [ happyrave.com ] |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 11:54am |
| Coolness: 340400 | Originally posted by ZE`EV ...
well this is the web not an app.. people are used to hand pointers and i dont see why they should be abolished, theyre a good indicator of an element's clickability when building a dynamic website, many people refer to it as a "web application". so i think it *is* an app. :P would you really want people to click all over the screen to see if something works? no, but all the buttons rollover when you mouse over anyway.. which should tell the user what's clickable.. js wise, im not gonna get into an argument.. but answer me this: would your main site functionalities (browsing acceleration and cosmetics aside) still work for someone with disabled js? ask yourself this.. who disables JS? no one, that's who. people disable cookies, which i can understand.. which is why my site's not dependant on them at all. sure its tempting to make use of the client's computing power and it does decrease server load, but theres a fine line between real-time functionality plus improved handling capacity versus coherency of your site's presentation independently of the user who's browsing it. i guess it depends on your target viewers more than anything, but regardless of what it is, i for one would like as many people to see and use my shit in the form it was intented as possible... if you design your site to be more than 800px wide, you're not reaching far enough.. i designed the site to work for people with more than a 15" monitor, and for people with computers that are not more than 6 years old. i don't think that's a very high requirement to view.. i've tested the site on 400mhz computers and it still runs fast.. i think that's something else.. :P |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:30pm |
| Coolness: 194760 | Originally posted by DJNEOFORM...
no, but all the buttons rollover when you mouse over anyway.. which should tell the user what's clickable.. ok, but my point about people being used to things as they are still stands... usability, especially when it comes to web forums, should definitely be a concern and for people who are used to hand pointers that way is more usable which does not come in the way of the rollovers or vice versa ask yourself this.. who disables JS? no one, that's who. people disable cookies, which i can understand.. which is why my site's not dependant on them at all. ok, maybe not disabled, but wrong version, shitty implementation (oddball browsers), or even lack thereof (lynx) optimally should make a site perhaps less comfortable or advanced but still browse-able and functional at least when its main purpose is concerned. my question was, is yours? it wasnt a rhethorical question, i was actually asking. if you design your site to be more than 800px wide, you're not reaching far enough.. i designed the site to work for people with more than a 15" monitor, and for people with computers that are not more than 6 years old. i don't think that's a very high requirement to view.. i've tested the site on 400mhz computers and it still runs fast.. i think that's something else.. :P i somehow doubt JS takes that much comp speed, my secondary shit-comp is 392mhz (overclocled from 300), runs XP, systemworks 2k5 and most of the recent every-day hoopla and still renders most sites pretty fast. my point wasnt so much about old computers or small screens (although that too) but rather odd configurations, browsersm operating systems, etc.. now then as long as your answer to my non-rhethorical question is YES, it would fulful its main functionality, then i have nothing to say against your schema.. when a site works exactly as intended for 90%+ of the viewers and STILL WORKS (altho it may be slower, uglier, etc) for the rest, its not so bad. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:35pm |
| Coolness: 340400 | i really don't feel like catering to the computer illiterate.. so if they dun get how it works.. TS. :P |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:37pm |
| Coolness: 194760 | that attitude REALLY doesnt work when it comes to commercial site building
or any site where you want to build a userbase, for that matter :b |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:39pm |
| Coolness: 340400 | hahaha, well in my case this is a personal project, and i think it'll take off.
this site is focused at tech-enabled types. last think i want is people posting stuff like "what's a start menu?". |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:42pm |
| Coolness: 194760 | okok fair enough
p.s. theres no rollovers in the top horizontal menu p.p.s: your site is looping the 'loading' screen at me as i type this. it just got past 100 seconds hehe |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:44pm |
| Coolness: 340400 | wha'd you click on? if it ever goes that far there's something wrong..
and the top menu's rollover is gonna come soon. ;) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Zz.ee.vV replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 12:57pm |
| Coolness: 194760 | i left the comp for a bit and came bac and its now at about 950 :P
it did that when i clicked on some user's profile, then while it was loading, i clicked on another.. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» TONES replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 2:49pm |
 Coolness: 51205 | why is there a loading screen. Its not playstation. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 3:17pm |
| Coolness: 340400 | it's NOT??
ze'ev: bah, i fixed that bug! *fixes it again* |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» nothingnopenope replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 5:56pm |
 Coolness: 201960 | i really don't feel like catering to the computer illiterate.. so if they dun get how it works.. TS.
Yeah but then the only people you have on your site are computer geeks :D |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Mon Mar 28, 2005 @ 9:52pm |
| Coolness: 340400 | meh, most message board rats are anyway. |
New Site
| Page: 1 2 |
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
