File input problem
in [CSS]
|
Prev: Help with a Table Wanted
Next: background shorthand
From: David Mark on 9 Dec 2009 08:18 On Dec 9, 6:11 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 10:33 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That's how its rendered on most browsers, but it's not a button and > > > text box, its a file input and css rules are not being applied. > > > Yes. > > Sucks. You would have thought web standards could have sorted stuff > like this out. It's not like they haven't had over 15 years or > anything! > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Highly cut down. You can't upload files from most mobile > > > > > > > platforms anyway. > > > > > > > And why did you have to cut it down? Because it was bloated with > > > > > > dubious scripts. It's a very common problem that leads to two sites > > > > > > where one would suffice. ;) > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > My phone? I guess you've never used it. And you don't design front- > > > > > > ends exclusively for desktops (that's your other problem). > > > > > > I guess you know better than the people behind a few little web sites > > > > > like , Google, MSN, Amazon, Ebay... etc, all of which have seperate > > > > > front ends designed specifically for mobile devices. > > > > > Why is it that those who have the most to learn always cite terrible > > > > decisions by large Websites as if they were gospel (thus learning > > > > nothing?) Google, MSN, Amazon, eBay. What a rogue's gallery that > > > > is. Copy their developers at your own risk. ;) > > > > > And search the archive. We've discuseed - for example - Google's > > > > crappy sites to death. There's not a scintilla of evidence that > > > > anyone at Google knows the first thing about Web development. > > > > Advertising yes, Web sites no. Oh, but they are so successful! How > > > > much more successful would they be if they had competent developers? > > > > Ha ha, I was being sarcastic, but no, you actually do think you know > > > better. > > > Sarcastic about what? That Google, Amazon, etc. are shining > > examples? So you have no point then? > > Get a clue. You think google and amazon would not use one frontend if > they thought it would benefit their customers? After all money is the > bottom line. What you don't understand is that their sites are focused on the past. There was a time (long ago) when it might have made sense to have two. And how do you conclude that their obviously incompetent Web developers can explain anything to management. The recommendations of "experts" is all that the bean counters have to go on. ;) And I still can't figure out if you like Google, Amazon, etc. You dropped their names to try to make a point, then claimed sarcasm. (?) > > Mobile users have different requirements to desktop users. Exactly. So leave the input styles alone. > > 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. ;) > > (A simple web page that renders some controls won't cut it - I mean > something that is used and works in a real business scenario. I bet > you can't.) Controls? Real business scenario? Google's pages are about as bare bones as they come (in terms of content). Are you saying their pages couldn't work equally well in the majority of mobile devices released this century? > > > > Like I said before, in the Real World, deliverables come before > > > ideologies. > > > The "Real World" is what neophytes bring up when painted into a > > corner. Do you think you can delivery anything (reliable) with jQuery > > than I can without it? If so, you are living in a fantasy world. ;) > > Non sequitur. You really do have trouble concentrating You really do have trouble staying on topic. > , nowhere did I > make any such claim. Then what is your big "Real World" claim? Oh, that you can deliver something that doesn't really work and ignore the reasons why. Good luck with that!
From: Mark Smith on 9 Dec 2009 08:59 On Dec 9, 1:18 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Get a clue. You think google and amazon would not use one frontend if > > they thought it would benefit their customers? After all money is the > > bottom line. > > What you don't understand is that their sites are focused on the > past. There was a time (long ago) when it might have made sense to > have two. And how do you conclude that their obviously incompetent > Web developers can explain anything to management. The > recommendations of "experts" is all that the bean counters have to go > on. ;) > > And I still can't figure out if you like Google, Amazon, etc. You > dropped their names to try to make a point, then claimed sarcasm. (?) > Politics aside, they are highly popular successful cash generating web sites. 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. The sarcasm was that you knew better than them. You failed to provide any counter examples, as I expected ;) > > > > 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. This inherently limits functionality - notably mobile users have limited bandwidth and screen space. > > 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. Again, I ask that you show me some examples of businesses 'doing it right'. Since you can't provide any, I submit that your 'way' is wrong. > > > > (A simple web page that renders some controls won't cut it - I mean > > something that is used and works in a real business scenario. I bet > > you can't.) > > Controls? Real business scenario? Google's pages are about as bare > bones as they come (in terms of content). As bare bones as their front page is, the engineers at google still decided to make a seperate mobile homepage. Haven't you heard of gmail, google news, etc they all have plenty of content and seperate mobile and desktop front ends - to meet different requirements. Why do you find it so hard to understand? > 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. Here's some more for you: Wikipedia.org (Hardly bloated, yet they recognise the need for a cut down mobile front end) Digg.com Slashdot.org In fact all the main news/social websites have mobile front ends. I guess you know better, eh? > > > > > > Like I said before, in the Real World, deliverables come before > > > > ideologies. > > > > The "Real World" is what neophytes bring up when painted into a > > > corner. Do you think you can delivery anything (reliable) with jQuery > > > than I can without it? If so, you are living in a fantasy world. ;) > > > Non sequitur. You really do have trouble concentrating > > You really do have trouble staying on topic. > > > , nowhere did I > > make any such claim. > > Then what is your big "Real World" claim? Oh, that you can deliver > something that doesn't really work and ignore the reasons why. Good > luck with that! My claim is that the standards need fixed - at least for the file upload control. 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.
From: beegee on 9 Dec 2009 09:41 On Dec 8, 8:10 am, Andrew <val...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There are the things jQuery can really help with, making your code > more readable. You were making sense up to this comment. Having worked on (added features and fixed bugs) on a couple of sites that used jQuery I would have to disagree. The noise that DM exampled above: "$('#d').doSomething().doSomethingElse();" was typical except the chains I found would stretch across the page and wrap down to the next line. Utterly unreadable and undebuggable. I believe jQuery is an "ah hah!" for relatively new javascript coders but anyone who has experienced a real develop-qa-release-maintain-qa- release etc. cycle would avoid it. I guess it might be good for disposable websites that have to 'appear' to work across the most popular browsers. Bob
From: David Mark on 9 Dec 2009 10:07 On Dec 9, 8:59 am, Mark Smith <marksmith5...(a)jungle-monkey.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 1:18 pm, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Get a clue. You think google and amazon would not use one frontend if > > > they thought it would benefit their customers? After all money is the > > > bottom line. > > > What you don't understand is that their sites are focused on the > > past. There was a time (long ago) when it might have made sense to > > have two. And how do you conclude that their obviously incompetent > > Web developers can explain anything to management. The > > recommendations of "experts" is all that the bean counters have to go > > on. ;) > > > And I still can't figure out if you like Google, Amazon, etc. You > > dropped their names to try to make a point, then claimed sarcasm. (?) > > Politics aside, they are highly popular successful cash generating web > sites. Politics were never part of it. And what do their advertising and marketing abilities prove about their Web development proficiency? > > 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. And certainly I _knew_ better than them, I most likely _know_ better than them now. Time will tell. ;) > > 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? > > > > > > 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. > > 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.). And how much bandwidth do you think it takes to produce Google's pages (if they were designed competently). > > > > 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? And as you examples are all bad, it wouldn't surprise me if they kept going in the wrong direction, even if it detracts from their profitability. They don't know what they are doing. > > 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. > > 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. > > > > > > (A simple web page that renders some controls won't cut it - I mean > > > something that is used and works in a real business scenario. I bet > > > you can't.) > > > Controls? Real business scenario? Google's pages are about as bare > > bones as they come (in terms of content). > > As bare bones as their front page is, the engineers at google still > decided to make a seperate mobile homepage. I know! :) > > Haven't you heard of gmail, google news, etc they all have plenty of > content and seperate mobile and desktop front ends - to meet different > requirements. Why do you find it so hard to understand? So your proof is to endlessly trumpet Google properties (GMail!) as if they were good examples. I find that very hard to understand (though I hear such "arguments" once a week at least). Mass hysteria, perhaps? Google's properties are uniformly awful. How do you not understand that? > > > 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? > > Here's some more for you: > > Wikipedia.org (Hardly bloated, yet they recognise the need for a cut > down mobile front end) I don't know what they recognized. Note the tense. > Digg.com Bloated beyond belief, IIRC. > Slashdot.org Who? > > In fact all the main news/social websites have mobile front ends. And when were those sites designed and implemented? > > I guess you know better, eh? You don't seem to grasp the concept of time. Yes, I _knew_ better than whomever built the "main" news/social websites. Virtually all of the major news sites are disasters full of popup ads, Flash, script errors, etc. These are your examples? Are you saying _you_ don't know any better than the anonymous clods who fouled up - for example - ESPN's sites? I don't think I can think of one major news site that isn't cringe-worthy and exasperating to use. And yeah, that hurts their business. I, for one, avoid such sites like the plague. As for the major social sites. Most use jQuery or YUI IIRC. Copy past mistakes at your own risk. > > > > > > > > > > Like I said before, in the Real World, deliverables come before > > > > > ideologies. > > > > > The "Real World" is what neophytes bring up when painted into a > > > > corner. Do you think you can delivery anything (reliable) with jQuery > > > > than I can without it? If so, you are living in a fantasy world. ;) > > > > Non sequitur. You really do have trouble concentrating > > > You really do have trouble staying on topic. > > > > , nowhere did I > > > make any such claim. > > > Then what is your big "Real World" claim? Oh, that you can deliver > > something that doesn't really work and ignore the reasons why. Good > > luck with that! > > My claim is that the standards need fixed - at least for the file > upload control. There's no standard that says inputs must reflect style changes. > > 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? And what is the business requirement that mandates the use Flash with no recourse? I'm having trouble following this latest argument.
From: Mark Smith on 9 Dec 2009 11:36
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. Ha. Good luck with that! > > 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. If your way is so good there must be some examples in use out there... > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > 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. (The toolbar at the top, that produces drop downs on mouse over etc) Their mobile front end is much more basic, smaller images, and focuses on lists of items. Sure, they could replace it with one that functions adequatley on both platforms. But as a competent business they want to target their users and provide the best experience on each device. > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. Sure there are even some very basic web pages that render adequatley on desktops and mobile devices. 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. Your excuses for not providing any counterexamples are becoming quite comical! > > > > 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. > > > 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). I'm damn sure google know what they need, and how to do it better than you. > > 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! > > > > > 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). I would have thought you would know this. (Being smarter than the engineers at all the other web companies and all...) In the context of this discussion, Flash could be used to work around the shortcomings of the file input element. > > 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. FWIW I don't like flash either, these are just the reasons it is used. |