[QUOTE=MadPro119;46353564]Stop I literally just made [URL=http://people.rit.edu/cxs1466/jqparallax/index.html]one of those websites [/URL] lol[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46353514]The asshole who designed whatever tidbit of HTML5 that [URL="http://www.dodge.com/en/reveal/charger/"]these[/URL] [URL="http://www.navdy.com/"]kinds[/URL] [URL="http://www.dinkytownrentals.com/golden-lodge/"]of websites[/URL] use needs to be investigated for insider trading. They must have had stock in Logitech because scroll wheel replacements have gone through the fucking roof thanks to that shitbag.
I'll be ecstatic when that trend is over.[/QUOTE]
This is the first I have ever heard of or seen this "parallax scrolling" before.
Give me back my ignorance. I want it back.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;46353514]The asshole who designed whatever tidbit of HTML5 that [URL="http://www.dodge.com/en/reveal/charger/"]these[/URL] [URL="http://www.navdy.com/"]kinds[/URL] [URL="http://www.dinkytownrentals.com/golden-lodge/"]of websites[/URL] use needs to be investigated for insider trading. They must have had stock in Logitech because scroll wheel replacements have gone through the fucking roof thanks to that shitbag.
I'll be ecstatic when that trend is over.[/QUOTE]
Woah, that's freaky.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;46353564]Stop I literally just made [URL=http://people.rit.edu/cxs1466/jqparallax/index.html]one of those websites [/URL] lol[/QUOTE]
It's terrible in its usability aspect, even compared to removing all the formatting completely.
[QUOTE=spectator1;46353986]Not sure what's wrong with flash, I doubt html5 is better.[/QUOTE]
1. It's closed source, whether you care about this or not depends on you tho.
2. It requires you to download an addon to use, modern browsers work with HTML5 without requiring you to download anything. Sometimes people can't download flash, (IOS (There's an unofficial way to do it last I checked, not sure if there's an official way though), and many other random devices people might access your website from, such as smart TVs, the Model S tablet screen, etc).
3. The performance sucks shit, flash runs like garbage even on very high-end PCs. Simple games are fine, but if you try to have really any complexity or spectacle things begin to slow down.
4. It's horrible for the disabled.
5. Flash crashes a lot, often taking your browser down with it.
6. Websites made just about entirely with flash break how you think your browser works.
[URL]http://www.gotmilk.com/[/URL]
This website is an example. You like one of the pictures on the website and you want to save it? Too bad. Wanna copy-paste a recipe to send it to your girlfriend or something? Go fuck yourself. You can't just right click>save image, or ctrl-c and then ctrl-v.
7. Did I mention performance? If your website requires me to sit and wait for something to load besides a game, you're doing it wrong.
[URL]http://www.gotmilk.com/#/recipes[/URL]
Here, this website can be an example again, what's that you see when you click it? A loading screen! Websites shouldn't have loading screens to show a simple recipe along with some graphics. If you want another example of flash being slow, put the fruit in the blender and turn it on. This computer has an I5 4670K CPU, and an R9 290 GPU, there is no reason for something like that to stutter. I'm willing to bet it does somewhat on other people's computers as well.
Eh, those are a couple reasons off the top of my head. Flash is still fine to use for animations for, say, videos. But you shouldn't throw it up online without turning your video into another format.
[QUOTE=helpiminabox;46354794]Woah, that's freaky.[/QUOTE]
If you want more examples, pretty much every car website uses it now.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;46355320]Why aren't you using a CSS pre-processor, it takes all the pain out of this while providing awesome bits of syntactic sugar.
[editline]28th October 2014[/editline]
Seriously, go install SASS and Grunt immediately.[/QUOTE]
Less is another. [url]http://lesscss.org/[/url]
[QUOTE=Coment;46353876]Cool, but we're still going to need to spam our CSS with
-webkit-function
-moz-function
-o-function
function
, and our HTML5-using features with javascript fallbacks, to support older versions. So I don't see it that important.[/QUOTE]
Mozilla and Google are moving away from prefixes (Mainly because of the WebKit policy of never removing them, they're fine if they're just temporary) and towards just supporting the latest syntax behind a preference. You shouldn't need to use -moz- for current versions of Firefox, not sure about Chrome though.
But yeah, in practise this won't amount to anything, it's not like browsers actually follow strict version numbers so having a canonical "HTML5" only helps people who want to write to that specific spec revision.
What really pisses me off is when websites use the "Load More" button or auto loading when you scroll to the bottom of the page, instead of numbered pages. If I'm searching through a lot of content, my browser gets slower the larger the page gets and if it crashes (which often happens), I may never find where I was again because my last position was 1000s of images down. With numbered pages you can quickly navigate to where you want by changing the URL, bookmark and restore specific pages, and it doesn't fuck up your browser. Web developers who choose this form of navigation need a good boot up the hole.
[QUOTE=MadPro119;46353564]Stop I literally just made [URL=http://people.rit.edu/cxs1466/jqparallax/index.html]one of those websites [/URL] lol[/QUOTE]
This shit is so gimmicky and annoying to read. Literal wall of text is more preferable, and the fact that you have images just overtake text doesn't help, either.
[QUOTE=gufu;46357617]This shit is so gimmicky and annoying to read. Literal wall of text is more preferable, and the fact that you have images just overtake text doesn't help, either.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean by "images overtake text"?
We were assigned a project to turn a research paper into a website, I figured a 7 page research paper just plopped into a page would both look bad and be a challenge to read. By including pictures I thought it could make for a more entertaining and understandable read.
Would you really rather read [URL=http://people.rit.edu/cxs1466/parallax/]this first one[/URL] over [URL=http://people.rit.edu/cxs1466/jqparallax/[/URL]this second one[/URL]? Maybe I'll strip away all the images and go for something minimal like the first one...
Edit: Sorry this isn't super related to the article. Go HTML5 yay yay yay
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46354181]I just wish there was a way to make webpages that adapt to the screen you use. Since I got a widescreen monitor it's been a huge pet peeve of mine to see page after page where only the middle third has content, with the left and right sides blank. It's 2014, why are webpages still designed for 14" 4:3 CRTs? Even my phone has an HD widescreen.[/QUOTE]
don't go fullscreen for web browsers, really it's pretty pointless, 99% of websites are text or small images, your just stretching stuff and making reading harder. Books are not "wide", can you imagine a book with the text sideways?
[QUOTE=MadPro119;46357664]What do you mean by "images overtake text"?
[/QUOTE]
Thing is, you want to keep the main font small but readable, as to keep eyes from getting tired from moving focus around so much and to reduce the amount of scrolling needed. Images may be placed strategically around the text, but not to the point, where it is more interesting to look at images rather than reading the text (hell, text/image ratio feels off). If you want to have something fun and exciting, I'd suggest images only appearing when they are extremely relevant.
And oh god, that gif is just an annoyance.
Cool, now we just need someone to swoop in and replace javascript with something safe and modern. It wouldn't even need to be that different, give it static types(with inference so its still easy) and a bit of structure.
[QUOTE=Neusspray;46356155]What really pisses me off is when websites use the "Load More" button or auto loading when you scroll to the bottom of the page, instead of numbered pages. If I'm searching through a lot of content, my browser gets slower the larger the page gets and if it crashes (which often happens), I may never find where I was again because my last position was 1000s of images down. With numbered pages you can quickly navigate to where you want by changing the URL, bookmark and restore specific pages, and it doesn't fuck up your browser. Web developers who choose this form of navigation need a good boot up the hole.[/QUOTE]
The annoying thing is that sites can easily fix that (via the History API), but barely any sites do so.
I doubt we'll see JavaScript go anywhere, there's so much backward compatibility inertia that you won't see browsers without JS engines for a long time, and implementing other languages are frowned upon by the vast majority of browser devs.
IE had VBScript (With classes and static typing!) and they removed that. I think at one point Mozilla experimented with embedding Python into the browser (Never went anywhere), and even the Chrome devs seem to be resisting Dart.
Edit: Also don't forget TypeScript, gives you all the benefits of static typing while maintaining compatible with JS engines (Which won't benefit much from static typing since they work that out internally anyway, only if you're mixing types will the browser do extra work)
[QUOTE=Neusspray;46356155]What really pisses me off is when websites use the "Load More" button or auto loading when you scroll to the bottom of the page, instead of numbered pages. If I'm searching through a lot of content, my browser gets slower the larger the page gets and if it crashes (which often happens), I may never find where I was again because my last position was 1000s of images down. With numbered pages you can quickly navigate to where you want by changing the URL, bookmark and restore specific pages, and it doesn't fuck up your browser. Web developers who choose this form of navigation need a good boot up the hole.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this, websites like tumblr and pinterest use infinite scroll and they never get slower as I scroll down
[QUOTE=ehheh;46353620]As a student studying web-design, I suppose I should try not doing the whole parallax scrolling deal. Thought it was just me that was getting tired of those types of sites.[/QUOTE]
Done right, its really awesome, but by done right I mean subtle
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;46354181]I just wish there was a way to make webpages that adapt to the screen you use. Since I got a widescreen monitor it's been a huge pet peeve of mine to see page after page where only the middle third has content, with the left and right sides blank. It's 2014, why are webpages still designed for 14" 4:3 CRTs? Even my phone has an HD widescreen.[/QUOTE]
Doing good responsive design like that is pretty tough and doesn't work for every site. I had to implement it for some internal government sites and was that ever a pain in the ass.
[QUOTE=Valnar;46353653]Don't worry we still will have to develop for old versions of ie for a good while.[/QUOTE]
Fuck I wish IE8 and 9 would boot up with an air raid siren and a huge warning saying "YOUR BROWSER IS UNSAFE AND SERIOUSLY OUT OF DATE".
Also mandatory link when talking about IE8 and how fucking terrible it is: [URL="http://www.theie8countdown.com/"]Internet Explorer 8 Countdown[/URL]
better start work on HTML6 then
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.