Prev: The Most Challenging Interview Question
Next: typeof eval("(function F(){})")
From: nick on 7 May 2010 16:39
On May 7, 5:19 am, Gregor Kofler <use...(a)gregorkofler.com> wrote:

> It "looks" ok (now), but the validator still points out 121 errors and
> 38 warnings (on the super-simple start page, of course). Pathetic.

What I find amusing is looking at Google Groups in Google Chrome with
the console up. Lots of DOM errors there.
From: David Mark on 7 May 2010 22:29
Garrett Smith wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> I am experiencing a lot of problems using google.com search results,
>>> GMail, and google groups today. I am using Firefox 3.6.3 with all
>>> javascript enabled.
>>
> [...]
>>
>>> Tonight I am getting errors that are numbers:
>>>
>>> ".206"
>>> ".206"
>>> ".104"
>>>
>>> Indeed it in the source, I see:
>>>
>>> | throw new Error(".104");
>>
>> LOL. That looks like Googledygook.
>>
>
> They probably have "error codes" table somewhere.

Yes, but why throw them at end-users? Looks like over-engineering to me
(i.e. throws outside of try-catch are usually pulled from production code).

>
> More:
>
> | try{}catch(u){}

Nothing I see out of their scripts surprises me. They often read like
random nonsense.

>
> and
>
> | <ol onmouseover="return true"

Or their markup.

>
> [...]
>
> Try Firefox plugin "Javascript Deobfuscator" to see more.
>
>>> Apparently somebody totally screwed up and broke Google.com search
>>> results. Took em all day but they finally fixed it, but I swear, all of
>>> today, the layout for the search results page showed the google "sprite"
>>> image overlapping the search results, making it very hard to read the
>>> first two results.
>>>
>>> Too bad I did not get a screen shot of that.
>>
> Now I have the new layout again; I see the issue.
>
> Screenshot:
> <http://dhtmlkitchen.com/img/blog/google.com.jpg>

I guess they don't test FF3.6. Odd choice for developers who clearly
program by feel (requiring feedback to know if they are doing right or
wrong).

>
> Notice how the google sprite is displayed and overlaps the search result.

Yes. Clearly their CSS is broken somewhere. They should really sign up
for my support service (I'd ferret out the busted rule in thirty
seconds). But I guess whatever they have in place is "good enough" for
them. :)

>
> Am I the only one seeing this? FF 3.6.3 on Windows. I saw google.com
> looking ok on another Firefox 3.5 on Mac.

Hang on, let me fire it up. I rarely use it for anything other than
testing as it is a dog compared to Opera and Chrome.

No. It looks okay here. Their auto-complete is a piece of junk though.
Clicking elsewhere in the document did not close it (had to use the Esc
key). And how stupid is it to hide 80% of the page until the search box
is focused? The first time I saw that, I waited patiently for the rest
of the document to load. And waited, and waited... Finally I realized
they the effect was intentional. I guess they just wanted an excuse to
use that "modern" fade effect.

>
> NoScript is allowing all scripts there, too (otherwise a notice would be
> displayed such as "Scripts Partially Allowed..." or "Scripts Currently
> Forbidden".

Can't imagine that scripts would be the culprit; but then, it is Google
we're talking about. If I were interested, I'd try disabling that plug-in.

>
> Regardless, the sprite problem should not be a js issue. CSS Sprites are
> created using one image and setting the css background-position,
> normally in the stylesheet.
>
>> Why? Everyone already knows their developers are incompetent (except
>
> Many, if not most non-developers tend to disagree.

And on what basis could a non-developer judge the competence of a
developer. But I know that many do (e.g. "good enough for Google" excuses).

>
>> their developers of course). The perverse thing is that many other
>> firms use that fact as an excuse to be incompetent themselves (good
>> enough for Google!) They forget that they don't have Google's money
>> (which can minimize a lot of major problems).
>>
>
> When I have made arguments about the importance of HTML validity, how it
> causes javascript to work differently, how its use is expecting
> error-correction, they have, on occasion, been downplayed with
> justifications like:
>
> "Who validates?" - "this is working fine" - "Look at any major site.
> Even google.com doesn't validate. Do you really think it is that
> important?"

Exactly. The answers are:-

1. Developers who wish to eliminate unneeded variables from an already
complex equation.

2. Empirical evidence based on peering at browsers on your desktop
should not be considered proof that something is "working fine".

3. They have no idea if Google validates or not. Invalid HTML may
simply indicate that they gave up on trying to make it valid (I've seen
that lots of times). Many Web developers are simply not qualified to
interpret the validation errors, which tend to cascade (e.g. one misstep
causes fifty errors). They get overwhelmed and don't realize that if
they could just fix the one root problem, the other forty-nine errors
would vanish.

It is odd that Google, with all of their money, can't seem to find good
help in their primary industry. Where are they based out of?
California? There's got to be at least a few out there.
From: Scott Sauyet on 9 May 2010 22:15
David Mark wrote:
> Garrett Smith wrote:
>> David Mark wrote:
>>> Why?  Everyone already knows [Google's] developers are incompetent
>> Many, if not most non-developers tend to disagree.
>
> And on what basis could a non-developer judge the competence of a
> developer.

On what basis can a non-musician judge the competence of a musician?

On what basis can a non-president judge the competence of a president?

On what basis can a non-designer judge the competence of a designer?

Obviously we can judge the competence of those outside our own field,
and rightly so if we can view the results of their work.

-- Scott
From: David Mark on 9 May 2010 22:13
Scott Sauyet wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> Why? Everyone already knows [Google's] developers are incompetent
>>> Many, if not most non-developers tend to disagree.
>> And on what basis could a non-developer judge the competence of a
>> developer.
>
> On what basis can a non-musician judge the competence of a musician?
>
> On what basis can a non-president judge the competence of a president?
>
> On what basis can a non-designer judge the competence of a designer?
>
> Obviously we can judge the competence of those outside our own field,
> and rightly so if we can view the results of their work.
>

It's mot the same. The non-developers don't know anything but what they
see in their installed browsers (and what do they compare as virtually
every site on the Web is incompetently slapped together). Now, give
them a wide variety of browsers/modes/configurations to test, enable
error reporting so they can see the failings and perhaps they could
judge. ;)


From: Andrew Poulos on 9 May 2010 22:47
On 10/05/2010 12:15 PM, Scott Sauyet wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
>> Garrett Smith wrote:
>>> David Mark wrote:
>>>> Why? Everyone already knows [Google's] developers are incompetent
>>> Many, if not most non-developers tend to disagree.
>>
>> And on what basis could a non-developer judge the competence of a
>> developer.
>
> On what basis can a non-musician judge the competence of a musician?

As a non-musician, a judgement that one likes the music of one person
over another doesn't automatically qualify you as a judge or music.

> On what basis can a non-president judge the competence of a president?

That you imply that the "man in the street" can judge the head of a
state even though that "man in the street" may have no real
understanding of the machinations of political opposition parties, the
media, the current economic climate... is ludicrous.

> On what basis can a non-designer judge the competence of a designer?

That it seems many people slavishly follow whatever the current trend
might be is indicative of a lack of understanding of design and hence to
know good design when they encounter it.

> Obviously we can judge the competence of those outside our own field,
> and rightly so if we can view the results of their work.

Your personal opinion may or may *not* matter.

A surgeon may operate on someone yet that someone dies. To the family
the surgeon is incompetent. To the medical board it might be discovered
that some hitherto unknown medical condition caused it (the surgeon
could not reasonable have been expected to know).

For me, I prefer to get opinions from those skilled in the particular field.

Andrew Poulos
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: The Most Challenging Interview Question
Next: typeof eval("(function F(){})")