[OT Web 2.0] Do you think free ad's might help advance D?

[BCS]

Hello Nick,

> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
> news:a6268ff14f148ccd857550de288 at news.digitalmars.com...
> 
>> Your not countering any point I tried to make. Let me be more
>> explicit, you, Nick, maybe have good reasons to not allow scripts,
>> but I don't think SO is a good example of why you don't. If every
>> site did JS as well as SO, I suspect you wouldn't hate them in the
>> first place and you would never have seen what it looks like with
>> them turned off.
>> 
>> As I see it, you don't like JS etc. because it can and is abused in
>> ways if you used JS etc. would cause you problems, so you don't use
>> them (a legitimate choice). SO is painful to use without JS etc. (not
>> under depute). SO is at fault; doesn't follow. Blame, JS etc., blame
>> the people who abuse them, blame the people who designed them. But
>> unless you can show how SO would cause YOU a problem using it the way
>> it was designed to be used, I don't think you can get away with
>> blaming SO for the problems.
>> 
>> OTOH, given that there are people out there that don't allow scripts,
>> I will grant the point that a site that is hard or impossible to use
>> without them is being stupid (or has decided that they are willing to
>> loose some segment of the population and, BTW, I think SO has
>> explicitly stated they are in the second camp)
>> 
> I'll put it this way: what's the *point* of SO having things that
> don't work without JS

That they do work with it.

> and forcing that always-present nag banner?

I'll grant that one.

> There is no real legitimate reason. Ease-of-implementation sure as
> hell doesn't count, because JS and DOM implementations are notoriously
> lousy to work with. The biggest reason that could be realistically
> argued is that they're attempting to force it on the very people who
> obviously don't want it. Saying that such a move is downright arrogant
> and disrespectful would be putting it mildly. Such a site shouldn't be
> encouraged.

Using JS alows many thing to be done without reloading the page. This is 
a plus as far as I care. Making it work with JS *and* without is harder than 
either by its self. Given the choice between a high functionality version 
and/or a lower version, the worst choice is to do only the low version.

> 
>>> And besides that, there is one, and only one, *good* way to use JS
>>> in a site: Create the site completely non-JS. Then add in optional
>>> JS in the few places where it could actually improve responsiveness
>>> and usability.
>>> 
>> I'll grant the point with some (significant) restrictions: the sites
>> core feature set should be usable with JS.
>> 
> It should be usable either with or without JS. (Did you mean "without"
> here?)
> 

Oops, typo.

>> For SO the core feature set IMHO (and I suspect not in yours) is
>> being able to read questions and answers from pages Google feeds me.
>> If that can be done without much pain, I think that's all you can
>> expect to demand.
>> 
> Last I checked (admittedly a while ago, maybe it's changed?), there
> were issues with posting, searching and voting without JS. Not only
> are those fundamental parts of what makes SO SO, but on a technical
> level, those are absolutely trivial things that have absolutely zero
> valid excuse not to work without JS.

IIRC something north of 80% of SO's traffic is from Google by non or first 
time users. What to take a guess how many of them do anything but read the 
text and go back to there job? SO's core objective is to have good answers 
to questions. As long as most of there user can post questions they get that 
done. As for search, frankly, there's problems even *with* JS. If I want 
to find a particular question, I use Google with site:stackoverflow.com. 
If I just want an answer to a question, I don't care where the answer comes 
from so I just Google for it. Voting? Again, as long as most people can vote, 
stuff works.

>>>>> and forces that OpenID crap,
>>>>> 
>>>> What's wrong with it? Really, I want to know.
>>>> 
>>> It's a phisher's wet dream - it makes ordinary logins look like Fort
>>> Knox. If a person *tried* to design a system that maximized
>>> phishability, I don't think anyone could have done a better job.
>>> 
[...]
>> And even then you object because it makes it *easy* to screw the
>> pooch big time rather than *forcing* you to risk doing so?
>> 
> As I said, SO effectively does force it. (Unless something's changed?)
> 

OK SO forces you to use OpenID (if you want to me more than a drive by user) 
but it doesn't force you to screw the pooch with it.

>> (You can always open a different OpenID per site and you will be no
>> worse off than without OpenID and might even be beter; at leat one of
>> the providers has to be implemented competently...)
>> 
> frankly even as trivial as 3-foot-high public restroom
> hand-dryers that my 6-foot self has to damage my back bending down to
> use (over years of repeated use, of course)

For me it's a 6'3" frame and kitchen sinks that are about 6" to low to wash 
dishes in!

>, I'm just really, well,
> pardon my tone here, but I really am just goddamn fed up with trying
> to work around idiotic shit every-fucking-where I turn. I've had
> enough, and the last thing I need right now is yet another goddamn
> workaround (again, pardon my anger, it's not directed at you), this
> time because it's getting to the point where every single time I want
> to find an answer or give an answer to something, I have to deal with
> SO, simply because that's all anyone ever uses anymore.
> 

Speed limits are a work around for people being complete and utter morons 
(at x - 3 sigma). Capitalism is a workaround for people being greedy (man 
I wish Mr. Marx hadn't been so wrong). Clothing is a work around for it being 
cold (than and hormones). Computer screens and keyboards are are a work around 
for lack of brain-computer interface. The whole darn world is one hacked 
up kludge of a workaround.

>>> I still
>>> consider it a "fad" though, because that's precisely the category it
>>> belongs in. Same with mandatory-JS, overuse of JS, misuse of JS, and
>>> JS-nagging. I know I'm breaking the literal definition, but as far
>>> as
>>> I'm concerned, a fad still deserves to be labeled "fad" even if
>>> there
>>> just happens to be enough morons out there to keep it going well
>>> beyond the lifetime it deserves.
>> What would you replace it with? Static HTML is good for showing
>> static content and filling out (simple) forms: basic I/O. If that's
>> all you are doing, by all means, make it work with JS. But what about
>> the other 90% of the stuff out there? Anything that is more than
>> minimally interactive. From where I sit, the choices are JS, a thick
>> client, Flash (Yuck!!) or something else that will have 90% of the
>> problems of at least one, it not more, of the above.
>> 
> In many cases JS doesn't need to be replaced. It just needs to be used
> (if at all) as a supplement to server-code and static-HTML. Many uses
> of JS should outright disappear, of course, like slow choppy
> unnecessary animations, or opening new windows while tricking HTML
> validators into thinking you're compliant.

I'll grant those cases.

> 
> Anything that can't be reasonably implemented with static-HTML doesn't
> belong on the web in the first place. It belongs either, yes, as a
> think client

When your users know up front they are going to use it more than twice, sure. 
Maybe what's needed is something that acts as a safe sandbox that a web page 
can download a light weight client into. Oh wait, that JS or Flash with the 
90% that's broken removed. :b If it's worth anyone using, some moron with 
make something annoying out of it.

> or as something along the general lines of Adam Ruppe's

link?

First, I don't think your nuts, however I think the economics are against 
you here. From the web page writers standpoint, given that most user DO allow 
JS, the cheapest way to deliver the best user experience to the most people 
is to do each part in whatever way is easiest to do a good job with. It doesn't 
pay to spend hardly any time making the site better for a few percent of 
your user base when the same time could be spent making it better for the 
other 95+%. From the other end, making a better browser platform, the most 
bang for the buck comes with improving what the most people use. A wholesale 
replacement might happen, but not any time soon.

-- 
... <IXOYE><