Web2.0 Standards

all websites should be designed to work flawlessly in links/lynx .
 
Surely JS must have some future in the web? I mean why did Google and Apple redesign their JS engines? Could it perhaps be that JS is becomming more and more popular?
 
Kloon said:
Surely JS must have some future in the web? I mean why did Google and Apple redesign their JS engines? Could it perhaps be that JS is becomming more and more popular?
Click to expand...

Again, we are not arguing against of JS entirely - its just that you shouldn't design a site with JS in mind. I've been down that route and got burnt. Like Raithlin said, use JS to spruce up the site. Don't discount the (possibly minute) portion of the global population who have JS disabled, or use text-browsers to access your page.

The big issue I normally deal with is validation. If you a user submits a form that is solely dependent on client-side validation, you're gonna end up with some data inconsistencies. Its nice having client-side functions to validate data BEFORE it gets sent to the server, but if JS is disabled you'll need to validate the data again on server-side. The safest option is to always validate on server-side, but add the client-side validation in for a nice bluff... :D

EDIT: @Kloon: No, I am but a humble web-developer studying the trends and best-practices... ;)
 
Some bloggers are calling Javascript to be the next big thing. Nobody doubts that it is big on the web, and getting bigger. However, the web is a strange and diverse environment, and it has to be taken into account that not all browsers support javascript, and that it is optional.
 
Raithlin said:
www.dstv.com. ALL Flash. Irritatingly so.
Click to expand...

Looks like the "entertainment" industry all follows this trend. Ster-Kinekor and Nu-Metro also have these horrible flashy websites... :rolleyes:

Raithlin said:
Some bloggers are calling Javascript to be the next big thing. Nobody doubts that it is big on the web, and getting bigger. However, the web is a strange and diverse environment, and it has to be taken into account that not all browsers support javascript, and that it is optional.
Click to expand...

Scripting is even becoming popular in "widget" development. Just look at the Windows Sidebar...
 
Kloon said:
Yet the site in your signature is table based :D
Click to expand...
Ha! Vat so. :D

Don't get me started on validation. I thought my js-validated input was secure until I attended a white-hat hacking course. Boy, were my eyes ever opened! Never assume your posted input is secure - don't even assume it is coming from your page! Always sanitise your data on the server side. Javascript-validation is purely a user-friendly addition. Treat is as such.
 
Well in principal I only use client side validation to check if data is entered, the validation I always do on server side.
 
Kloon said:
Yet the site in your signature is table based :D
Click to expand...

OLD site. I only did the graphics and concept, not actual coding... ;) New site (designed by me, completely table-less and CSS styling only) is to be launched during March.

Did I hear a "vat so" somewhere? :p

EDIT: Just for some info, the company in my sig is not MY company.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
OLD site. I only did the graphics and concept, not actual coding... ;) New site (designed by me, completely table-less and CSS styling only) is to be launched during March.

Did I hear a "vat so" somewhere? :p

EDIT: Just for some info, the company in my sig is not MY company.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know how that feels. That's why I don't link to the company I work for - only the one I own. ;) Also know what it's like to be hammered for what is your client, but not your design. I'm busy replacing code for a client at the moment - I link to the client on my portfolio, but it's not one I'm proud of - yet.
 
I'm thinking of just redoing the structure of the website to be HTML for content and CSS for style, with one for screen and another for print. Also thinking of doing some SEO-friendly URLs. Only thing is, I need to find a day or two to do it in... *sigh*
 
FarligOpptreden said:
I'm thinking of just redoing the structure of the website to be HTML for content and CSS for style, with one for screen and another for print. Also thinking of doing some SEO-friendly URLs. Only thing is, I need to find a day or two to do it in... *sigh*
Click to expand...
Tried using Umbraco?
 
No, not yet. I looked into it last week and it looks really powerful! I'm a bit overloaded on the work front right now, unfortunately. I'll give Umbraco a bash when things settle down a bit after the rush of March...
 
Kloon said:
arg, another winblows cms.


Now that cant be good.
Click to expand...
I take it you haven't looked past the features page? It's an open source CMS, which is good. It's powerful, and sanitises Word input. I'm going to use it for my own site - feedback forthcoming when I do so (another case of "When I get the time").

[EDIT]Perhaps I should qualify my statement. My host is ASP.Net (IIS), so PHP with Apache .htaccess support doesn't help me. That, and I've spent loads of research time looking for a decent .Net SEO-friendly CMS. Dot Net Nuke doesn't do it for me either.
 
Last edited:
FarligOpptreden said:
Looks like the "entertainment" industry all follows this trend. Ster-Kinekor and Nu-Metro also have these horrible flashy websites... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Actually I think that SK have a very nice flashy site, and there's very few flash sites that I would say that about. Nu Metro's site is all js - not a single swf on there.

semaphore said:
Yes its a idea, but most web 2.0 "ideas" use JS.

facebook, myspace, gmail, digg, etc...
Click to expand...

And those sites all degrade gracefully for people with js disabled or not available (at least gmail and facebook do, I haven't checked myspace or digg 'cos I don't intend on going to those sites anytime soon.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X