Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Senior Coder deathshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 297 Times in 287 Posts

    Reply to Labrar (rather than go full threadjack) -- frameworks, etc.

    Rather than continue the thread drift, I'm breaking off my reply off from @BrandonQDixon's thread so that other one can at least TRY and stay about his site.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Nowadays mobiles are a zooming subject. I can't imagine that someday there are more mobiles than local machines out there, but it will go that way. Bootstrap makes it really easy to create Websites with a (for mobiles) common look for users.
    I'm assuming you mean "booming market" since I've no clue what a "zooming subject" would be (unless we're talking about a Republica video from the 1990's -- and you REALLY might want to check your numbers as most places have been saying for over a year and a half now that mobile traffic now accounts for MORE THAN HALF of all web traffic.... so it IS a real concern... Just like how Firefox is damned near pissing its pants as traffic of FF users through Wikimedia is now lower than what Opera had before they had "soiled their own bed" by slapping their logo on Chrome any old way and telling all loyal Opera fans to sod off.

    Market share numbers are fun, when they aren't being used to bold-faced lie to us via card-stacking...

    But what the **** that has to do with bootcrap is beyond me since it's EASIER to make mobile sites without it, since you don't waste time pissing all over the markup with PRESENTATIONAL classes, DEFEATING THE ENTIRE REASON HTML AND CSS ARE SEPARATE IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I remember the days when i had to do two designs. One for local, one for mobile.
    NEVER fell for that trap, as really mobile devices at that time were so pathetic and such a small number it wasn't financially viable to even bother.

    But then for at least two thirds of the time I've been writing websites I've been writing semantic gracefully degrading markup with separation of presentation from content, which is why 90%+ of my sites making them mobile friendly was typically involved adding 3k or less CSS to the existing screen media stylesheet... Since I've also been using media targets for over a decade and a half! There's a reason when I see a <link> without media="" or someone using media="all" I feel like screaming "what is this, 1997?!?" -- then you take one look at the markup and go "oh... apparently they think it is!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Thats gone with bootstrap.
    You mean media queries. since that's what bootcrap tries to use in a broken inaccessible PIXEL based manner. Which is why for users like myself a great many sites built with bootcrap are broken rubbish when the queries kick in!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Of course mediaquerys can do alot.
    Since that's what bootcrap TRIES to use.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    But (to my opinion) there's nothing comparable out there yet.
    Then you probably don't fully grasp semantic markup or separation of presentation from content -- again given how bootcrap pisses all over the markup with unnecessary DIV, unnecessary PRESENTATIONAL classes, actively encourages non-semantic markup (though admittedly on that point I say the same thing about HTML 5's new pointless redundant "structural" tag bull), actively encourages pixel metric thinking telling users (like myself) to go **** ourselves...

    There's a LOT out there that's comparable, and that's because of what utter idiotic broken TRASH it is... and, well... I'll get to the other point AFTER talking about jQuery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I agree also with all that bloated JS (as e.g. JQuery. 80% useless, or for the momentary Project useless). But at the other hand i did a similar Library which is even bigger than JQuery (almost 150kb) and i wont miss it since. Because it really does alot of things for me in no time.
    Which PROBABLY means you filled it with stuff that either has no business being done with JavaScript, or has no business being done on a WEBSITE -- like around two-thirds of jQuery's codebase!

    ... and just so you know, jQuery is 260k now before minification so you weren't bigger. Not by a long shot unless you were comparing minified. The laugh is that minified at 90k or so jQuery is STILL twice the size of the total unminified scripts I would EVER put on a website... and after gzip compression it is still larger than what the majority of sites I would write would EVER have need of!

    But as I'm always saying, EVERYTHING I've EVER seen done in jQuery falls into that magical three categories:

    1) Stuff that's CSS' job.

    2) Stuff that would be less code as vanilla JavaScript

    3) Things that have ZERO damned business on a website in the first place if you care about accessibility, usability, user experience, speed, and all the other things that differentiate DESIGN from artsy-fartsy "gee ain't it neat" BS.

    Hence why as I'm always saying MOST of the people out there calling themselves "web designers" aren't designers; they're graphic artists as they lack the engineering knowledge to DESIGN a damned thing. The Ralph McQuarrie vs. Chip Foose paradox; which one would you hire to draw a car you expect to build and have go down the road straight? Here's a tip, it's not the Sci-fi icon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    And when i have to choose between 8 hours work for a job or 4 Hours, than i go with 4 hours.
    So do I, and that's the part I don't get about these frameworks is how is starting out with more code THAT FORCES YOU TO WRITE MORE CODE save you time?!? HOW? WHERE!?!? The ONLY thing I can figure is either cookie-cutter stamping out the garbage Every ***ing bootstrap site ever concepts with little to nothing of value, or an utter and complete ignorance of how to use HTML or CSS properly.

    Though all you have to do is look at the sample pages for bootcrap to realize these jokers have ZERO business telling others how to write HTML or CSS... since AGAIN as I'm always saying if you don't know what's wrong with THIS:

    Code:
      <body>
        <nav class="navbar navbar-toggleable-md navbar-inverse fixed-top bg-inverse">
          <button class="navbar-toggler navbar-toggler-right hidden-lg-up" type="button" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#navbarsExampleDefault" aria-controls="navbarsExampleDefault" aria-expanded="false" aria-label="Toggle navigation">
            <span class="navbar-toggler-icon"></span>
          </button>
          <a class="navbar-brand" href="#">Dashboard</a>
    
          <div class="collapse navbar-collapse" id="navbarsExampleDefault">
            <ul class="navbar-nav mr-auto">
              <li class="nav-item active">
                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Home <span class="sr-only">(current)</span></a>
              </li>
              <li class="nav-item">
                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Settings</a>
              </li>
              <li class="nav-item">
                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Profile</a>
              </li>
              <li class="nav-item">
                <a class="nav-link" href="#">Help</a>
              </li>
            </ul>
            <form class="form-inline mt-2 mt-md-0">
              <input class="form-control mr-sm-2" type="text" placeholder="Search">
              <button class="btn btn-outline-success my-2 my-sm-0" type="submit">Search</button>
            </form>
          </div>
        </nav>
    Do the world a favor, back the **** away from the keyboard, and go take up something a bit less detail oriented like Macrame. How in the blue blazes is writing 1.4k of HTML to do HALF A K'S JOB?!? Much less that to have an appearance different from the bootcrap defaults you'd end up using damned near as much CSS (not counting a reset) as you'd have without it?!?

    Seriously, there is NO reason for that HTML given what they are doing on the page to be significantly more than:

    Code:
    <body>
    
    	<h1><a href="#">Dashboard</a></h1>
    
    	<input type="checkbox" id="mainMenuShowHide">
    	<label for="mainMenuShowHide"></label>
    
    	<ul id="mainMenu">
    		<li><a class="current" href="#">Home</a></li>
    		<li><a href="#">Settings</a></li>
    		<li><a href="#">Profile</a></li>
    		<li><a href="#">Help</a></li>
    	</ul>
    
    	<form action="#" method="get" id="topSearch">
    		<fieldset>
    			<label for="topSearch_term">Search:</label>
    			<input type="text" id="topSearch_term" name="q">
    			<button type="submit">Search</button>
    		</fieldset>
    	<form>
    Other than utter and complete INEPTITUDE on their part. Lands sake they can't even bother putting together a logical document structure that follows the professional writing norms HTML was based on! Hence their cheeto fingered half-tweet mentality of having the site/page title in a anchor inside NAV with ZERO semantics to call it suck, using placeholder to do label's job, static markup to do generated content or UTF-8's job, JavaScript to do CSS' job, and all the other ignorant mental-midgetry that is the hallmark of EVERY single page I've EVER seen built with it.

    I don't get how the devil people can claim writing two to ten times the code is "easier", unless they started out vomiting up ten to twenty times what they should have been using; which is entirely possible with SO many people writing HTML having never grasped the simplest aspects of semantics, leveraging selectors, separation of presentation from content, or any of the dozens if not hundreds of good practices we've been told for TWO DECADES NOW to switch to.

    Same reason when mobile friendly came along I went *YAWN* and everyone else ran around like chickens with their heads cut off... I was already using a class swap for mcSwitchy style via scripting, columnar techniques that made it easy to strip off columns, and maintained relatively complete separation of presentation from content since I stopped using <style> in 1999 and as of around 2002 or so style="" stopped showing up in my code unless it actually was used to convey meaning... such as width on a graph/progress bar, or font-size in a tag-cloud; the 0.01% of occasions where it still serves a legitimate purpose... and why I say that 99.99% of the time someone says style="" they're doing something WRONG. (and 100% of the time for <style>)... and have been saying that for over a decade and a half! To my mind MOST of the time I see style="" and EVERY time I see <style>? You might as well be still using <center>, <font>, border="", align="", etc, etc, etc...

    Just like the mind-numbingly idiotic <aside> that is for all intents and purposes is the new <center> so far as semantics and document structure are concerned. JUST like the idiotic <nav> that is pretty much redundant to starting your content area with a <h2> or <hr>! Or the <section> and <article> tags that are redundant to starting a new section with the appropriate depth numbered heading or <hr>! Or the <footer> tag that the way most people use it is redundant to the LAST <h2> or <hr> on the page... Way to undo EVERYTHING HTML 4 Strict was trying to accomplish!

    Don't even get me STARTED about <audio>, <video>, and <embed>... when fifteen years ago we were told that even <img> was supposed to be on the chopping block in favor of <object> so we weren't locked in to browser vendors whims... now we have tags DESIGNED to lock us into browser vendor whims because "Rawrz teh flash is teh evels!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Big libs shouldn't be an issue anymore since internetspeed (even with mobiles) is on a high standard (as long you're not living in log cabin out in the woods).
    First off, I live in New Hampshire. do the math.

    Second, have you heard about Net Neutrality going the way of the Dodo? Figure that speed size claim in once only the big companies that can make payoffs to the ISP's can afford real bandwidth! Have you HEARD of bandwidth caps, and how they are ON THE RISE for our friends in Canada? How our Kiwi friends and their neighbors in the land of Oz are constantly fighting with their ISP's over it, and when hitting those caps get cut off at the knees down to dialup speeds? How about the impending bandwidth crunch on the backbones because ISP's keep hyping faster rates whilst NOBODY is building new infrastructure since the greedy **** investors won't put any money BACK into the company -- making the entire network structure of the web little more than a house of cards?

    Or just simply how Google penalizes slow loading bloated sites; though they've eased up on that ever since they pulled the sleazy bait and switch with their pagespeed tool. Started out as a useful tool filled with good advice for making sites faster, then boom after a couple years remove all the legitimate advice to obsess on dicking with cache-control headers, and penalizing any site that doesn't use their "pagespeed service" or isn't shelling out for a CDN for static files... whilst showing you ads for CDN's in the sidebar.

    Which I started realizing Google PageSpeed had gone off into BS land when they were giving better rankings to 3 megabyte pages built from over a hundred files than they were 80k pages built from a half dozen that loaded in a fraction the time EVEN ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN NUMBERS. Naturally when those of us paying attention pointed that out, they took down how long it took for them to load the page as a statistic. CLASSY...

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    EDIT about the size of my lib
    Full lib 168kb.
    Current soon to be released 3.0 of my Elementals.js library?
    34k 'verbose' fully documented/commented
    16k minified
    6.3k minified + gzipped (aka what it should be on deployment)

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Only the main stuff (animations
    Aka CSS' job since this is 2017, not 2007. You 'need' to do anything more complex than a class swap or style.top/style.left for your animations now, you're probably doing it the hard, bloated, and outdated way.

    Bottom line, EVERY time someone claims that these frameworks somehow save them time, I wonder just what absolute unnecessarily bloated inaccessible garbage they were making BEFORE the framework! AT BEST all they do is shift the bloat from the CSS you have to write into the markup... and news flash, CSS can be cached or even pre-cached for sub-pages, markup generally isn't on pages with lots of content updates.
    I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned.
    http://www.cutcodedown.com

  2. #2
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 21 Times in 21 Posts
    Can't disagree and agree either.

    To Bootstrap (or Bootcrap, how you call it )
    You picked out an example which is indeed common for Bootsrap, but nobody have to do it that way. Tagname don't have to be nav, as long nav is within class="".
    The same way you don't have to put any button stuff inside.

    Just ul, li and a. And thats a common way (certainly even for you).

    I know your fighting for minimized stuff. Thats okay. (OFFTOPIC I had a client who wnat me to do a black site with white letters. Reason: Saving energy. He claimed, that when everybody uses black sites, the CPU's don't have to work that hard and world energie would be saved a lot. /OFFTOPIC)

    But than. I've checked your site with my mobiles. And it's different. Not saying bad, not saying good. Need getting used to. And thats not because of a bootstrap virus infection. Thats because bootstrap goes pretty close to native look. We don't have to talk about how a website should look on a mobile (Tastes differ) and even some of my clients don't want their sites to look like "nowadays almost all" sites look (of course because of bootstrap).

    But now we are in this mobile world and we have to go with it or do something complete different. Thats my opinion. And you can't educate clients to more minimized stuff if all they see everyday is bloated animation, magic, thousends of images, videos and audio Stuff. I don't know how (or if) you handle that. In fact, i agree with you. Don't missunderstand me.
    But you cannot buck the trend.

    As i said. I don't like JQuery too. But it came a part of internet. Google works with it, Facebook works with it, Twitter and so on. Even the open source CMS works with it. What do you want to do so? If a client comes to you, "Hey, make me a joomla site". Do you go "Naaaaaa. I make you something from the scratch"? Certainly not. Right?

    I have to disagree a bit about what you're saying about CSS. Yes, CSS can do a lot of animation and should do the most of the design stuff. But than. When a client want to have some gradiation colors, should i always open up collorzilla and copy the css code? When he want something dynamic should i do that twice or more? No, of course im using one of my librarys functions that do that for me. (Just one example of saving time)

    Animations.
    Yes, animate.css is awsome. I use it by my self and it's also fully integrated in my lib. But than, its limited, absolute useless for games or userinteragation. So of course i have similar functions to JQuery (or using JQuery directly) to achieve that. Can't tell my clients "Hey, the animations goes one way only."

    Next point is (i know people wont hear it anymore) there's still some morons out there using IE 7. What about those guys? Of course im not going to design something extra for them. But i take as much care as possible that it still works. I had the case already hen i did a website for a client, and the client called me back a couple days later, said that he's with a friend wathcing the site and nothing works. He was using an Oldtimerbrowser. Of course i explained that to my client. And fortunately he understood. But there are so many clients out there on their 60'ts. The don't understand nothing. They want the job to be done. For all browsers and with all in it. (Which is not possible) So what to do than? Quit the offer.

    To ISP.
    Im from germany. Even in germanys outback there is no Internetspeed less than 7000. I never knew that its different in the states. But the bigger part of my clientship is from US (thats why im in this forum in general than one of the thousand german forums) and from UK. They never complained or told me what you told me.

    Plus, im almost two times a year in the states for vacation. I don't sleep in those expensive tourist collecting points, (i always go to the florida keys, so it's not affordable for me anyway) i sleep in the cheapest motels i can find. Even there the internetspeed is perfect (and i have to share with others)

    Summary. ISP is growing (as you said) but there is no reason to worry about that maybe someday everything is going to crash. Do you really think they put a multi billion buisiness on a risk? It's going faster and faster. And i doubt that this will change or that it will sometimes be only available for thos who can afford it. More the other way. It comes cheaper and cheaper.
    In germany, for example, you can have full power internet for about 9 bucks a month.

    Don't know how about didgeridoo land and if something's really dodo in this case. But right now it is at it is. Ans i have to go with it. Maybe you're right. Than maybe me and millions of other coders have to go back to the roots.

    But again. Im with you in so many points. But you can't go with this rebelling position, even when you're right.
    Last edited by Labrar; 07-17-2017 at 10:49 AM.
    I never ever read PM's unless it's an job offer. So save your time for regular questions in the forum. I never ever take friendship offers. We are not on facebook here.(It's stupid on facebook too). Friendship? Do i know you? Did we ever had a beer together? Thats really stupid. Sorry.

  3. #3
    Senior Coder deathshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 297 Times in 287 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    That's because bootstrap goes pretty close to native look.
    Then I think we have a very different definition of 'native look' -- though you called it an infection; that's very apt since in most cases it's the "Hey look it's EVERY ***ING BOOTSTRAP SITE EVER" and for me, as a user with accessibility needs AND a developer aware of what can land you in court in the UK, CA, etc -- what bootcrap does on mobile is BOUND to get you in trouble and just plain piss off users.

    How it behaves on mobile -- even if it is 'the norm' -- simply isn't something to aspire to!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    And you can't educate clients to more minimized stuff if all they see everyday is bloated animation, magic, thousends of images, videos and audio Stuff. I don't know how (or if) you handle that.
    A LOT of the people I've done work for the past ten years came to me BECAUSE that garbage bit them in the ***, landing them with court fines, civil litigation, and so forth over failing to meet accessibility norms. They come to me when their site is so slow it has no traffic, or costs too much to host, or they've run out of pockets to keep throwing more and more and more hardware at it.

    Even when I started out making websites my specialty was taking sites that were killing small businesses in terms of what they could afford for hosting -- sites that were choking out dedicated dual xeon servers with multi-megabytes of RAM (and we're talking 15-17 years ago) and gutting them down so they could comfortably fit into shared hosting... even if it meant all the artsy fartsy bull had to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    If a client comes to you, "Hey, make me a joomla site". Do you go "Naaaaaa. I make you something from the scratch"? Certainly not. Right?
    I would assume they only know Joomla as a sick buzzword because they read about it in Forbes, try to educate them, and if they don't get it I would politely yet firmly show them the door. They come in the door wanting to be scammed, I can't bring myself to scam them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I have to disagree a bit about what you're saying about CSS. Yes, CSS can do a lot of animation and should do the most of the design stuff. But than. When a client want to have some gradiation colors, should i always open up collorzilla and copy the css code? When he want something dynamic should i do that twice or more? No, of course im using one of my librarys functions that do that for me. (Just one example of saving time)
    If it's STATIC style it should be STATIC in the CSS... if you are using some scripttard library to handle STYLE you have no business building WEBSITES. Once you KNOW what the style is, put it in the CSS static.

    But then "something dynamic" is uselessly vague, could you provide an example of what you mean?!? That SOUNDS to me like the type of garbage that IMHO has zero damned business on a WEBSITE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Yes, animate.css is awsome.
    Assuming you mean CSS animations in the form of transition or keyframes, and NOT the idiotic dumbass halfwit "animate.css" framework filled with BULL**** that has ZERO damned business on websites in the first place unless your ENTIRE reason for building the site is to piss off users '90's style. To me what people do with animate.css is NO different from the endless animated GIF, garish colours, and piss poor accessibility typically found on the worst websites ever!

    It's the same asshat nonsensical artsy-fartsy crap that distracts from the content, gets in the users way, and in many jurisdictions can land your arse in court! -- a LAUNDRY LIST of things NOT to do on a website if you care in the slightest about speed, accessibility, usability, or user experience. There's a REASON you don't see this idiocy being used on ACTUALLY successful websites like Google, E-Bay, or CraigsList.

    Or when they do try and piss the bed with it, users dive for browser extensions like Ghostery, NoScript, and Adblock Plus to tell the 'designer' creaming their panties over the "gee ain't it neat" animated crap to stick their scripttardery where the sun doesn't shine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I use it by my self and it's also fully integrated in my lib. But than, its limited, absolute useless for games or userinteragation.
    No clue what you mean by user integration in this case, given that most such garbage pisses on user experience and interface useability from so on high you'd think the almighty just got back from a kegger... but given the piss poor state of HTML audio, for anything more than turn based games JavaScript/Canvas/HTML element manipulation via CSS is pretty far down my list of tools to use to build a serious game.

    But that's GAMES, NOT websites. Much like web crapplets that's an entirely different ruleset where yes, it's ok to tell people who can't use the technology to sod off... and even so the result is usually such horrible garbage that, well... there's a reason mobile app stores are becoming a parody of themselves filled with second rate shovelware.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Next point is (i know people wont hear it anymore) there's still some morons out there using IE 7. What about those guys? Of course im not going to design something extra for them. But i take as much care as possible that it still works.
    That's my take on it too, but that depends on your definition of "works" -- A well written WEBSITE should work when scripting is blocked, so what's wrong with detecting "hey this is IE8/earlier, give them the non-scripted!"? A well written set of CSS rules should gracefully degrade -- IE8/earlier users don't get rounded corners and text-shadows, OH WELL! Those are NOT functionality, those are affectations!

    The bells and whistles don't work who gives a flying purple fish if the site can still be used in a manner that delivers CONTENT to USERS! That's the whole reason to build a website after all -- everything else is window dressing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I had the case already hen i did a website for a client, and the client called me back a couple days later, said that he's with a friend wathcing the site and nothing works. He was using an Oldtimerbrowser. Of course i explained that to my client. And fortunately he understood. But there are so many clients out there on their 60'ts. The don't understand nothing. They want the job to be done. For all browsers and with all in it. (Which is not possible) So what to do than? Quit the offer.
    Well first off, the page should at least WORK without the fancy crap. It's called graceful degradation and is why every website I've ever written is at least USABLE back to IE 5.x (often by accident just out of good practices). That's why I ... here we go again:

    <broken record>
    1) Start out with the CONTENT or a reasonable facsimile of future content in a flat text editor as if HTML didn't even EXIST. This is the baseline for users where HTML doesn't get applied properly.

    2) Semantically markup that content saying what things ARE, NOT what I want them to look like. This is the baseline for non-visual and other non-css targets such as screen readers (software that reads the page aloud), braille readers (which I use daily now due to medication complications), and of course, SEARCH ENGINES! As the joke goes, search engines don't have eyeballs, and as such should give a flying **** about your layout!

    At this point you should have a fully functional and usable website BEFORE you even THINK about customizing its screen media appearance!

    3) Use CSS and media queries to create the layoutS -- yes, PLURAL! That doesn't mean slop endless pointless presentational classes into the markup either OOCSS mouth-breather style. IF you have to add semantically neutral tags like DIV and SPAN, meaning you may add classes and ID's, the resultant classes/ids's should ALSO say what things ARE or WHY they are there, not WHAT they are going to look like!

    ... and again this is just LAYOUT -- BEFORE you even worry about colouration or presentational images. This way when users use accessibility override sheets via things like stylish, you know the layout is sound.

    4) THEN you can add more CSS to colourize/customize and hang your presentational images (if any). In that way, presentation is at the END of the process not the start, and why dicking around with 'wireframes' or drawing goofy pictures in Photoshop is NOT WEB DESIGN!!!

    5) ONLY once you have all that working should any desired scripting enhancements be added, with GOOD scripting ENHANCING functionality, not being the only means of providing it. If you can't make a fully functioning website without JavaScript first, you have ZERO damned business adding scripting to it!

    </broken>

    Vary from this at your own peril. Any client that cannot accept that and wants nothing more than "ooh shiny" either doesn't know enough to even have a website, or is going to be such a pain in the *** there's no amount of money to make them worth dealing with! Again the types of twaddles who think they can get sound technical advice from the pages of Forbes, which is much akin to thinking you can get sound financial advice from Popular Mechanics. Before you know it you've sunk half your life earnings into giant scams like Moller's air car or Twentieth Century Motors!

    Where to be honest, MOST of the people vomiting up these arsty image-heavy scripting-heavy movie-heavy animation-heavy sites have LESS business legitimacy that "Liz" Carmichael or Don Lapre.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Im from germany. Even in germanys outback there is no Internetspeed less than 7000.
    that must be nice... I travel two counties north of here and you're stuck with either 650kbps satellite at $200/mo where your upstream is 14.4kbps dialup, or 33.6kbps dialup. I'm LUCKY to live close enough to taxachusetts where I'm only paying $70/mo for 15mbps -- that due to a lack of proper infrastructure typically delivers around 3mbps during daytime hours. Don't even get me STARTED about the 1.5mbps upstream that for this area is considered "massive"; where most normal homeowners in the same town are stuck with 512kbps up.

    ... and that's assuming you're even near a landline / wap. When it comes to phone data plans 4g is still a pipedream, 3g is spotty, and the majority of people are still stuck using GSM meaning hello 512kpbs as your maximum downstream. (and like 9600 baud upstream, it's barely enough for VOICE to work right after encryption!)

    The laugh being I'm in one of the BETTER rural areas all things considered. Utah, the Dakota's, west of the Misissippi and east of the Rockies is a wasteland of piss poor rates over low grade copper...

    With NOBODY building infrastructure because they STILL haven't paid off the copper that was laid 40 years ago... as they struggle to run modern connections over those existing lines. You'd almost think they were lining board members pockets and paying out massive amounts to the investors without putting a dime back into the company... as if they're completely willing to throw their company's future and that of the ENTIRE country under the bus if it can make them a buck in the here and now! OH WAIT, that's how American business works in the 21st century. See "Health Insurance" for more.

    To most Americans what you Euro's get for bandwidth is 100% unbelievable fairy-tales, both in terms of your maximum throughput and what you pay for it. WHEN and where it is available we pay ten times what you do for a third the throughput... and that's assuming it is even available where frankly if you live more than 25 miles from a major city, it isn't!

    Though try being more than 25 miles from a major city in Germany and having people living there who aren't off the grid completely. Yeah, right.

    Population density == economic viability for infrastructure. Germany has a population density average of 235 with a smallest people per square mile of about 100... the US has a average population density of 84 meaning that pretty much for every mile of cable you run, you're reaching a third the people on average -- but you get into places like Coos County New Hampshire or Somerset county Maine, we're down into the single digits of people per mile. You get to the midwest and you have entire counties where you have to flip the numbers around and talk square miles per PERSON!

    Simply put your COUNTRY is roughly the same land-mass as Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont combined, with six times as many people per square mile average, and twenty times the people per square mile in the lowest population areas. Your idea of 'boondocks' is radically different from ours.

    ... and that's before we talk the people who can't even afford $70/mo or MORE for Internet and end up sharing the connection at the college library, Panera bread, or McDonalds. Where suddenly you have 30+ people trying to share a 5/1 business connection over wireless... assuming there's any bandwidth LEFT after the nearby neighbors leech off it with cantenna's. Similarly you have connections shared at work which is where connection limits come into play, and why reducing the number of separate files on a page can be the make-or-break for a sites success in such areas.

    Hence why endless pointless separate <link> for CSS inside <head> is idiotic rubbish, and why techniques like the incorrectly named CSS sprites are so important!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Plus, im almost two times a year in the states for vacation. I don't sleep in those expensive tourist collecting points, (i always go to the florida keys, so it's not affordable for me anyway) i sleep in the cheapest motels i can find. Even there the internetspeed is perfect (and i have to share with others)
    The Keys IS an expensive tourist spot!!! As is the entirety of Florida. That's like an entirely different COUNTRY. Probably why there are more miles between Keene, NH and Tampa, FL than there are between Berlin and Moscow! You could probably drive from where you are in Germany all the way to Jerusalem, in less time than it would take me to get from here to the Keys.

    Which is why generalizing "the states" is a HUGE mistake. Just because it's good in Florida means jack **** in New England or the mid-west. Our major cities and their immediate suburbs may have comparable services, but that's basically the plutocrats compared to the rest of this nation. Just because it is fast in Chicago doesn't mean it will play in Peoria.

    See what Paypal discoverd when they ***ed themselves adding a high resolution video background to their site five years ago; then they went low res and were still screwed -- and it took them half a decade to convince their artsy fartsy designers and scriptttard jackasses that anything more than a static pic (which is STILL way too big to belong on a website) has any business on a website. It STILL prevents a lot of people here in the US from even getting as far as being able to log in without having a browser extension neuter that part of their site!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Summary. ISP is growing (as you said) but there is no reason to worry about that maybe someday everything is going to crash. Do you really think they put a multi billion buisiness on a risk?
    i've watched it first hand -- if the people running it think they can put a extra buck in their pocket, they'll throw the entire company under the bus and then sell it off cut-rate to a comeptitor. See how in Manchester, NH it went from Roadrunner to AT&T Roadrunner to Comcast to Time Warner to Spectrum... with the executives making a small fortune as the actual ISP went through bankrupcy after bankrupcy, buyout after buyout -- screwing over customers and REDUCING our available bandwidth time and time again.

    Which is how we went from 15m symettrical back in '00 to 3m/1m in 2004 to 3m/512k in 2008 to an ALLEGED 15k/1.5k in 2012 that really only delivered 3k/1k, to an ALLEGED 45k/3k that in practice outside of the 2Am to 6AM timeframe doesn't actually deliver more than 3m/1m just like 2004.

    The entire time the price climbing and climbing from $30/mo in '00 to $70/mo right now -- with no sign of price increases or bandwidth reductions going away, even as they ADVERTISE faster and faster rates they lack the infrastructure to actually deliver! AGAIN because nobody is re-investing in these companies, they're still paying off two and three decade old loans used to lay the old copper,

    It's also why you'll even see Americans butting heads with each-other over this. The people fortunate enough to live in a big city or even withing 25-50 miles of one have NO clue what anything is like for the rest of the nation... when for 80% of this country anything faster than 1mbps doesn't even exist yet!

    Same way cable TV didn't even come to the area I grew up in until 1989, and didn't come to the area I live in right now until 1998!

    And all that's before we even talk the end of net neutrality, where if your business can't afford to pay the ISP's extra, you're going to be getting the **** end of the stick in terms of your available bandwidth. Companies with pockets will be able to pay for "fast lane" access leaving every small business, hobbyist, or "personal site owner" to go plow themselves with your throughput reduced to 90's style dialup! THAT is the future the current US congress is shaping up and sad to say, it's going to drag the rest of the world with it so long as the US still controls ICANN and most of the major network backbones!

    Sorry mods if that treads into politics, but that's the TRUTH of what's going on right now and why all this endless pointless garbage IS going to start biting site owners, PARTICULARLY in regards to the gee ain't it neat scripttardery!

    We're getting chopped off at the knees with bandwidth caps, overage charges, lack of infrastructure to support modern speeds. It's not going "faster and faster' for everybody, quite the opposite in fact!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    In germany, for example, you can have full power internet for about 9 bucks a month.
    Which if you said to the average American on the street, they'd say you were full of manure... PARTICULARLY when you talk about what speed you are getting for that nine bucks. AGAIN, we pay eight to ten times that for a third the throughput in MOST of the country. Only certain states -- Florida and California for example -- and the area immediately around major cities like Boston, New York, and Chicago -- see those levels of bandwidth availability. You get fifty miles outside those areas, and we're talking 3/1 as a miraculously good connection... assuming you even HAVE the option and aren't stuck with a spotty satellite service, dialup, or trying to tether to your anemic ridiculously overpriced phone connection with it's equally ridiculous bandwidth cap. (500 megs before you hit overage charges is not uncommon for a $30/mo phone plan outside the major cities)

    So... basically, harsh realm.
    I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned.
    http://www.cutcodedown.com

  4. Users who have thanked deathshadow for this post:

    low tech (07-18-2017)

  5. #4
    Senior Coder low tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,053
    Thanks
    192
    Thanked 130 Times in 130 Posts
    @deathshaow


    <broken record> ... </broken>
    That the gem right there

    LT
    0000

  6. #5
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 21 Times in 21 Posts
    Never knew that about the states. First of all, my current speed is 13.10Mbps Download for 9.99 EUR / mon. (Germany almost all prices ends up in .99 or .95)

    But i wonder about
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow View Post
    It's also why you'll even see Americans butting heads with each-other over this. The people fortunate enough to live in a big city or even withing 25-50 miles of one have NO clue what anything is like for the rest of the nation... when for 80% of this country anything faster than 1mbps doesn't even exist yet!
    Did you mean 80% of the people or 80% of your country? Because if country, than it's not that bad.

    Look, i am only a tourist (but i think about spending my retire time in the states) so of course i don't know how it really is.
    But i know that the states are a wide huge country with more farmland and desert than citys. In other words, i can't imagine that there are a lot of guys living out in the desert or farmland. And those guys who really live there, don't really need Internet. Maybe im wrong.
    So it's maybe 80% of the country, but sure not 80% of the people (more something like 20 or 30% of the people, right?).

    Of course the prices you told me shocks me. 70buck per month only for a 7MB line is an effrontery (<--got this word from dict. Don't know if you're really using this in that case. Part of my bad english, I translate a lot from german to english without knowing if you're really using similar or same terms)

    However, the metropolitan areas are well equipped. Is that correct? And the most americans live in, or nearby this areas. Is this correct too?

    Im a bit tired to comment all of what you're saying (i will do this later)

    but summary. Most of my jobs includes a bit of magic animated, bling bling stuff. And i can't afford to show a client the door (politly or not) only because i don't agree with it's wishes.
    The opposite is the truth. They want new, modern stuff. They want to have more than the competition. If a competition company has a video as background, they want at least four videos.
    If competition have 10 useless animations, they want 20. They hire guys only to make plans about that. Guys with no idea about the technology behind it. They don't care.

    You're lucky guy when you can afford to say NO. I can't. I need the money. Nowadays more then 10 years ago. Competition is growing. 10 Years ago they give credit to experience and to what you,'ve done in the past. Today only price matters. Students, doesn't matter if they run a legal business or not, takes 15 bucks an hour. (Of course, they live back home with mommy, don't have to pay for anything). I have to pay for myself, and germany is expensive (exept for internet as it comes out).
    I never ever read PM's unless it's an job offer. So save your time for regular questions in the forum. I never ever take friendship offers. We are not on facebook here.(It's stupid on facebook too). Friendship? Do i know you? Did we ever had a beer together? Thats really stupid. Sorry.

  7. #6
    Senior Coder deathshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    2,051
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 297 Times in 287 Posts
    I REALLY don't think you understood...

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Did you mean 80% of the people or 80% of your country? Because if country, than it's not that bad.
    80% of the people in our NATION. Only around a FIFTH of Americans live in or near major metropolitan areas. We are THAT spread out because we have the ROOM to spread out.... Elbow room, elbow room, got ta got ta get some more elbow room.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    But i know that the states are a wide huge country with more farmland and desert than citys. In other words, i can't imagine that there are a lot of guys living out in the desert or farmland.
    Whilst YES, there are huge... tracts of land where there is 'nothing -- deserts and farms, there is a LOT of just plain rural areas where normal Americans live. As a country we have this odd dichotomy of having MOST of our citizens living in RURAL areas, not metro/suburb.

    Let's use the Commiewealth of Taxachusetts as an example. The state has a total population of 6.8 million the only REAL metropolitan areas are Boston, Worchester, and New Bedford -- and the latter two don't have what one would consider to be metropolitan suburbs, they have rural surrounding areas fitting my description of "Enjoy spending $70 a month on a 1999 connection". Even what are considered suburbs of Boston in terms of commuter traffic, you get south of Quincy, west of Waltham, or north of Lynn, you're right back in rural America.

    Take the town I grew up in, Plymouth MA -- which is considered a Boston suburb by commuters who regularly drive the 45 to 80 miles (It's a very LONG town if talking from Cedarville to North Plymouth) -- where we didn't even get cable TV service until the early 1990's, southern parts of the town (Manomet, Ellisville, Cedarville) cable providers didn't even offer Internet services until well after 2002, but 90% of my neighbors worked in BOSTON with their two hour commute each way.

    We're THAT spread out. I live in Keene New Hampshire right now, about a third of my neighbors commute from this VERY RURAL area all the way to Boston or even Hartford Connecticut for work. From here to Boston that's a hundred miles (160km in the stupid arbitrary mathematically ignorant metric nonsense. I cans haz ten fingars is a DUMBASS reason to create a mathematical base!)... To Hartford? Damned near the same distance. That's what, Hanover to Hamburg as a daily commute?

    Keene, NH is your typical American small town -- something this nation has hundreds if not thousands of. It has a population of around 24 thousand, in a 37.5 square mile area. It is considered DENSELY POPULATED by most of the people in the county since there are 78,000 people or so in a 730 square mile county.

    .. and that's NORMAL population density for America when you get more than 50 miles from a major metro -- and there are only about 16 major metro areas in the country, MOST of them facing the coastline. That's why 80% of the NATION'S population is considered to live in RURAL America.

    Though you cannot go with the US Census numbers on that as to them, Keene would be considered "Urban" -- as would Plymouth, MA -- and that's just plain bull. That's why they claim it is the other way around when it quite clearly is NOT. Where I live is NOT "urban" by any stretch of the imagination, the nearest URBAN area would be either Manchester or Nashua, some 50 miles over Temple mountain.But to be fair, I wouldn't call the state Capitol "urban" either... if it weren't for the major highway running up its middle and ONE massive plaza area, that would still be rural too! Hence their not even getting broadband as an option until 2005! We got it here in the boonies before the bloody state capitol did!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    Of course the prices you told me shocks me. 70buck per month only for a 7MB line is an effrontery (<--got this word from dict.
    You mean affrontery, means to offend -- like a back-handed slap. Effront means forehead or porch, with effrontery meaning to calm or re-assure.

    Don't know if you're really using this in that case. Part of my bad english, I translate a lot from german to english without knowing if you're really using similar or same terms)

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    However, the metropolitan areas are well equipped. Is that correct?
    Somewhat, even some east coast cities (Fall River, New Bedford, Portland) come up short in that department. ESPECIALLY if you're on the wrong side of a "backbone divide" and why the LACK of new network backbones being built being why Internet services in America are on the verge of collapse, even as the companies continue to over-sell what they can actually provide.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    And the most americans live in, or nearby this areas. Is this correct too?
    Not even CLOSE to true though the US Census tries to claim it is, and even then most of the near-metro suburbs are so spread out the "clients per mile of cable" is so low services ... are spotty to nonexistent. Little Nashua NH trying to be metro might have 45mbps symmetrical fiber... the towns to the west of Brookline, Milford, and Bedford is lucky if 3/1 DSL is even available to the home. SAME number of people, spread out over different amounts of land... and we have a LOT of people living in low density rural areas. Calling Milford, Bedford, or Brookline urban is an insult to the concept -- but the US census does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    but summary. Most of my jobs includes a bit of magic animated, bling bling stuff. And i can't afford to show a client the door (politly or not) only because i don't agree with it's wishes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    The opposite is the truth. They want new, modern stuff. They want to have more than the competition. If a competition company has a video as background, they want at least four videos.
    Thing is this isn't "new/modern stuff" -- it's revisiting crap that's been tried repeatedly and FAILED repeatedly. Again see how paypal shot themselves in the foot with a video background and only recently begrudgingly downgraded to a static picture (that's still too huffing big to be on a financial website and adds NOTHING of value to the page).

    When I see all these things on a website, all I see is the same garbage people were crapping on websites using animated GIF and flash twenty years ago! It is by NO means or reason "modern" design. They are poster-children for trying to unseat this site from its title:

    The World's Worst Website Ever!

    As literally when I visit these scripting heavy animation heavy video heavy sites, THAT'S EXACTLY what I see. Was going to use a "to be fair though" comparison, but I think it would be a rules violation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    If competition have 10 useless animations, they want 20. They hire guys only to make plans about that. Guys with no idea about the technology behind it. They don't care.
    ... and that is why they fail, and at BEST end up in "also ran" territory. There's a reason Vimeo and Dailymotion will NEVER unseat YouTube unless Youtube intentionally screws themselves... There's a reason some large companies STILL cannot figure out a viable web strategy despite being brick and mortar monoliths like the New York Times. It's that attitude mated to unrealistic expectations, ignorance of the most basic of accessibility norms, valuing form over function, and... well, something that is plaguing society as a whole right now as we become overburdened with Luddites propagating Bergsonism.

    In many ways it feels like what Patton once said about how to people on Capitol Hill he was committing some form of cardinal sin by offering his opinions on executing tank warfare. Something that has come to the forefront in the form of anti-vax, anti-gmo, anti-science whackjobs who think some TV Quack or know-nothing celebrity can tell them more about good health than someone who went to college for nearly a decade, residency, and operating under the province of peer reviewed facts... end result being people so stupid they steam their clam and then shove a jade egg up it for "wellness" -- Wellness apparently being the new sick euphemism for "toxic shock syndrome"

    Web development is the same thing, you get these jokers who know nothing about websites, and then REFUSE to listen to people who do because "ooh teh shiniez!" or because of the echo chamber found at nube-predating whorehouses like Themeforest and TemplateMonster.

    Such pandering to clients is the web business version of running a company like Goop or Mercola; where ignorance is peddled as fact, and somehow these big corporations are going to magically save you from big corporations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    You're lucky guy when you can afford to say NO. I can't.
    It's part of something I learned in the service called "risk accessment" -- something only reinforced by business classes and the past three decades of work. TOO many potential clients are time-wasting money pits that will in the long run end up costing you more in unpaid personal time, stressful interactions, and reputation towards working with your next client than ANY amount of money waved under your nose is worth. There are several litmus tests I've come to use to determine if a potential client is going to end up costing me more than they're willing to pay; from how they react to an in-writing notarized contract (if they're domestic US and say no, they're sleazy dirtbags who fully intend to stiff you on the bill!), how much they are willing to listen to someone who knows more about websites than they do, how or even if they can grasp the concept that the web is for everyone and not just their magical perfect size screen they have at office/home...

    ... or if they can even grasp the simplest of concepts that websites are NOT for stroking my ego as the developer, or some graphic artists ego, or even the site owner's ego with gee ain't it neat" fancy bull****. Sites exist for the USERS and to deliver CONTENT to them. Anything that gets in the way of that to the point of annoyance (see the still broken to the point of being useless mouse-wheel behavior on your project site) has ZERO business being put on a website in the first place!

    Which seems to describe MOST of what you are talking about slopping on top of websites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Labrar View Post
    I need the money. Nowadays more then 10 years ago. Competition is growing. 10 Years ago they give credit to experience and to what you,'ve done in the past. Today only price matters. Students, doesn't matter if they run a legal business or not, takes 15 bucks an hour. (Of course, they live back home with mommy, don't have to pay for anything). I have to pay for myself, and germany is expensive (exept for internet as it comes out).
    Sadly there's ALWAYS been a market for that, but that's ALWAYS been the dividing line between a legitimate business that actually cares about their web presence -- and fly by night scam artists or know-nothing rubes duped by a snake oil peddler into buying into some form of scam.

    Because honestly that's ALL these artsy-fartsy animation laden scripting heavy form over function websites ARE. If you are providing them, you're scamming people or being silently complicit in the scam IF said sites are ACTUALLY for legitimate businesses.

    Admittedly, MOST people will just blindly throw money away on "ooh shiny" -- doesn't make that any less of a scam.
    I would rather have questions that can't be answered, than answers that can't be questioned.
    http://www.cutcodedown.com

  8. #7
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    241
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 21 Times in 21 Posts
    Did'nt know that about the states. Almost unbelievable. Maybe Trump is going to fix it. (Hold. There's no money for Trump to get. So....) Kidding. He's better then our ***** Merkel. And that means a lot.

    I agree with you about the animation stuff, but still can't afford to deny a job. And i know what you mean. But most of my clients are regular customers. And i have to fight everyday to keep my prices and not to lose them.
    Thats business i guess. And im not complaining about it. But i can't wait for my retire.
    And i think websites we do mostly nowadays are far away from informtaion. (The content you'ven been talking about) What should a company tell about themselves? Who read that? Most users, for my experience, want to get exactly the "short" information they want. Thats why, what i guess, they go with all this animation stuff. Just to hide that they don't have anything to say. Or not able to make a long sentence short. (To the point)

    And, at the other hand, as i said, who read that?
    For example Mercedes Benz come up with a new model. What should they write about it beside of "it's the greates, has the longest, need only less gasoline (3 gallons to 70 Miles)?
    That's why they need a animated landing page only. Im not talking about their company site (where you can get all the informations), im talking about a pure product introduction page.
    Image slider, (and of course) some videos and only less text. As i said, i agree with you, but you can't do such type of sites without animation and stuff. Do you know what i mean?
    I never ever read PM's unless it's an job offer. So save your time for regular questions in the forum. I never ever take friendship offers. We are not on facebook here.(It's stupid on facebook too). Friendship? Do i know you? Did we ever had a beer together? Thats really stupid. Sorry.


 

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •