File input problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Help with a Table Wanted
Next: background shorthand
From: David Mark on 9 Dec 2009 12:23 On Dec 9, 11:36 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 3:07 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Their developers probably have many thousands of years experience > > > between them. > > > > If they could make the user experience better by cutting back the > > > front end - and make more money, they would. > > > As in the future? Who knows what they will do. The sites you refer > > to were clearly designed and implemented years ago. > > > > The sarcasm was that you > > > knew better than them. > > > So you really are trumpeting Google, eBay, etc. as good examples. Ask > > their users about that. And it's a non-argument anyway. > > You think the way to satisy users is to cripple the web page by coding > for the lowest common denominator. No. The last thing I would call my clients' sites is crippled. Oddly enough, they work on mobile devices too. ;) > Ha. Good luck with that! You are not me. :) > > > > You failed to provide any counter examples, as I expected ;) > > > Any counter examples of what? ISTM you asked for an example of a site > > that was "actually used" for a "real business scenario" and could > > possibly work on some mobile device(s)? Can you be more specific? > > Anything really, something with a large user base to give it > credibility. A large user base doesn't imply credible Web design. I already answered this question: most Web developers are incompetent, so looking for good examples can be time-consuming (and whether found or not, it doesn't change what is good practice). Good luck in your quest to find a decent site with a large user base. > > If your way is so good there must be some examples in use out there... I'm sure there are and they are definitely not the norm. See above concerning the current state of the Web. > > > > > > Mobile users have different requirements to desktop users. > > > > > Exactly. So leave the input styles alone. > > > > You are saying we should design every page as if it was for a mobile > > > device. > > > Nope. Neither am I saying you should design pages as if they were for > > desktop PC's with huge monitors, maximized browsers, etc. > > I agree, but if a page is complex enough that it needs a larger window > increases usability then it's not an unreasonable prerequisite - if > you provide an alternative customised for mobile users. Or if you know what you are doing. ;) > > > > > > This inherently limits functionality - notably mobile users have > > > limited bandwidth and screen space. > > > All sorts of users have limited bandwidth. Low bandwidth does not > > inherently limit functionality in Web pages (unless you use 100K of > > script where 10K would do, fail to use progressive enhancement, etc.). > > No but as a general rule, desktop users have more bandwidth, you can > therefore serve them richer content. So? What does that have to do with a "real business scenario" like Google's home page? > > > And how much bandwidth do you think it takes to produce Google's pages > > (if they were designed competently). > > Not much, but the google homepage is obviously designed for a desktop > user. I don't think it was so much designed as spat out. > (The toolbar at the top, that produces drop downs on mouse over > etc) What about them? If the site is unusable without the JS menus, it's broken for a lot more than phones. > > Their mobile front end is much more basic, smaller images, and focuses > on lists of items. Smaller images? On the Google home page? And focusing on "lists of items" seems an odd strategy for their home page. Try it with an iPhone or the like. I imagine it looks like an old WAP-style site. See what I mean about focusing on the past? Mobile devices have evolved. And they could present a WAP-like interface to older phones that need it by including a handheld style sheet. > > Sure, they could replace it with one that functions adequatley on both > platforms. I'm sure they could replace it with one that works stunningly on "both platforms". It's been done, trust me. > But as a competent business they want to target their users > and provide the best experience on each device. It is incompetent to maintain two pages where one would suffice. For Google's home page, it is clear that one would suffice. > > > > > > > > Show me a site with as much functionality as eBay or Amazon, that > > > > > looks good and works from desktop and mobile platforms. > > > > > As much functionality as eBay and Amazon? What does that mean? > > > > Perhaps you mean as unnecessarily bloated and poorly laid out as those > > > > two? That won't work. That's why they ended up with two sites.. ;) > > > > If they could have one site to do it all and/or better, they would do > > > it, out of pure self interest. > > > There you go again. Your examples are from the past. How do you know > > what these companies will produce in the future? > > That's your argument, that maybe these companies will do it your way > in the future?! Haha. That's not very compelling. No. My argument has never been based on what Google (or anyone else) has done, is doing or will do. Quite the opposite. I do disagree with your use of name-dropping for your arguments (and your odd interpretations of mine). > > > > > > Again, I ask that you show me some examples of businesses 'doing it > > > right'. > > > You mean with Websites that work well in mobile devices? If you can't > > find any (I think you can find at least one), that only indicates mass > > incompetence on the Web, which is not news. > > There are plenty of web sites designed for mobile, see my examples. Again. Go back and re-read. > Sure there are even some very basic web pages that render adequatley > on desktops and mobile devices. Your qualification of "very basic" is off IMO. What do you consider very basic? The Google home page was your example of one that needed to be split up. > > For a business that wants to target it's users and provide the best > possible interface for their platform, it's best to keep them > seperate. You are starting to repeat yourself. > > Your excuses for not providing any counterexamples are becoming quite > comical! I think you know right where you can find one. If not, it doesn't affect my position at all. I know it affects your position as you don't think anything is good unless you see a huge site using it. > > > > > > Since you can't provide any, I submit that your 'way' is wrong. > > > So, your proof is that because I don't know what you are talking about > > and _you_ can't seem to find whatever it is you are trying to > > describe, my "way" is wrong. I can't see it. > > You're the one that can't cite any successful websites that use only > lukewarm barely styled pages in order to look, just OK on every > conceivable device. Who said anything about lukewarm or "barely styled" pages? > > > > > Are you saying their pages > > > > couldn't work equally well in the majority of mobile devices released > > > > this century? > > > > Yes, they lack the resolution, and sometimes the bandwidth. > > > I said _could_ work (if they were competently designed). It's not the > > devices that are lacking. > > > As for bandwidth, how much bandwidth do you think competent versions > > of Google's pages would need? > > That would depend entirely on the requirements. (Both frontend and > backend). You are just blithering now. :( > > I'm damn sure google know what they need, and how to do it better than > you. You seem sure that Google knew what they needed years ago. You have no idea what they might be thinking now (and no way to tell). See the problem? > > > > > You don't seem to grasp the concept of time. Yes, I _knew_ better > > than whomever built the "main" news/social websites. > > Hahahaha. Bravo. You're a genius. Ahead of your time. Well done! Have you ever looked at those sites from a technical perspective? You seem to think they are good examples. (?) > > > > > > This is why people are resorting to abortions - like flash. Because > > > like it or not, money makes the world go round and business > > > requirements always trump a technically elegant solution. > > > Abominations? So, people are resorting to Flash to do what? To make > > the world go around? > > It's widely used to deliver embedded video and games. Obviously mobile > support is limited (another reason to keep it seperate). So are we talking about "real business scenarios" (e.g. Google's pages) or video games? > > I would have thought you would know this. You would have thought I would know you'd change your tack again? Maybe I should have. > (Being smarter than the > engineers at all the other web companies and all...) It is irritating that you keep putting your own bizarre spin on everything I say. I don't know if it's a language barrier or you are a child or what, but please go away. > > In the context of this discussion, Flash could be used to work around > the shortcomings of the file input element. We've been over that. Don't do it. It's stupid. > > > > > And what is the business requirement that mandates the use Flash with > > no recourse? I'm having trouble following this latest argument. > > No need to mandate, if done right it should degrade gracefully. Then you answered your own question. > > FWIW I don't like flash either, these are just the reasons it is used. And why do I care why you think Flash is used? Away with you.
From: Mark Smith on 10 Dec 2009 05:17 On Dec 9, 5:23 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You failed to provide any counter examples, as I expected ;) > > > > Any counter examples of what? ISTM you asked for an example of a site > > > that was "actually used" for a "real business scenario" and could > > > possibly work on some mobile device(s)? Can you be more specific? > > > Anything really, something with a large user base to give it > > credibility. > > A large user base doesn't imply credible Web design. No, but it would give your example credibility. But you obviously haven't got any... watching you squirm like this and cop out of giving any real world examples is funny ;) > I already > answered this question: most Web developers are incompetent, so > looking for good examples can be time-consuming A few posts back you said it should be easy - which is it?? > > > > This inherently limits functionality - notably mobile users have > > > > limited bandwidth and screen space. > > > > All sorts of users have limited bandwidth. Low bandwidth does not > > > inherently limit functionality in Web pages (unless you use 100K of > > > script where 10K would do, fail to use progressive enhancement, etc.).. > > > No but as a general rule, desktop users have more bandwidth, you can > > therefore serve them richer content. > > So? What does that have to do with a "real business scenario" like > Google's home page? > Some businesses need to deliver richer content to their customers. Not all businesses are the same. > > (The toolbar at the top, that produces drop downs on mouse over > > etc) > > What about them? If the site is unusable without the JS menus, it's > broken for a lot more than phones. Google is not broken without javascript - it degrades very gracefully. Idiot. > > Sure, they could replace it with one that functions adequatley on both > > platforms. > > I'm sure they could replace it with one that works stunningly on "both > platforms". It's been done, trust me. And where are these live mythical front ends that work 'stunningly' on all platforms?? Put up or shut up. > > > But as a competent business they want to target their users > > and provide the best experience on each device. > > It is incompetent to maintain two pages where one would suffice. For > Google's home page, it is clear that one would suffice. > Exactly, "suffice". What do you not understand about "best experience on each device"? > > > Sure there are even some very basic web pages that render adequatley > > on desktops and mobile devices. > > Your qualification of "very basic" is off IMO. What do you consider > very basic? The Google home page was your example of one that needed > to be split up. > They split it up to deliver the BEST possible experience on each device. Not because it couldn't be done any other way. You are acting clinically retarded now. > > For a business that wants to target it's users and provide the best > > possible interface for their platform, it's best to keep them > > seperate. > > You are starting to repeat yourself. > You started doing that a long time ago. > > > > Your excuses for not providing any counterexamples are becoming quite > > comical! > > I think you know right where you can find one. So now it's easy again - make up your mind! > If not, it doesn't > affect my position at all. You're spouting these claims - without any evidence to back it up. It seriously effects your credability.
From: Mark Smith on 10 Dec 2009 05:31 On Dec 9, 5:23 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Abominations? So, people are resorting to Flash to do what? To make > > > the world go around? > .... > > FWIW I don't like flash either, these are just the reasons it is used. > > And why do I care why you think Flash is used? Away with you. You asked! Retard.
From: Gregor Kofler on 10 Dec 2009 14:35 Mark Smith meinte: [ebay, Google, Amazon et. al.] > Politics aside, they are highly popular successful cash generating web > sites. > > Their developers probably have many thousands of years experience > between them. The user interface of ebay is a nightmare. Anything but intuitive, ridden with rendering errors, inconsistent appearance, menus designed by imbeciles. It's just that everyone flocks to ebay, because everyone else does. And everyone does, because one has always done so - ebay was the first (or one of the first with the best marketing) online auctioning platform. It's the sheer number of possible customers, not their idiotic user interface. (BTW: Their upload buttons look plain.) Amazon? 2109 validity errors? What should any respectable web author learn from that? Again it's not their pretty average user interface, but their free shipping and competitive prices and customer generated content, that makes them popular. > If they could make the user experience better by cutting back the > front end - and make more money, they would. The sarcasm was that you > knew better than them. Hey, Amazon got rid of table layout some time ago. For no apparent reason, since their markup is still one of the - if not /the/ - worst on this planet's face. What was your point? Gregor -- http://www.gregorkofler.com
From: dorayme on 10 Dec 2009 16:32
In article <76db11a9-4044-49d5-b550-1480f1c32011(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Mark Smith <marksmith5555(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 5:23 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Abominations? So, people are resorting to Flash to do what? To make > > > > the world go around? > > > ... > > > > FWIW I don't like flash either, these are just the reasons it is used. > > > > And why do I care why you think Flash is used? Away with you. > > You asked! > > Retard. It is rare to see such a nice long styled thread (a la pissing comp style) in this usenet group! Passionate folk those JS boys! -- dorayme |