Opera does not take html background-color

HTML & CSS
21

Agreed – Part of what disappointed me about the W3C adopting HTML 5 is it’s so loose a specification it makes HTML 4.01 Tranny look like XHTML 1.1 in that regard.

I also was one of the few people who went to use XHTML who though the entire XML application thing (as in actually building applications with XML) was a bunch of nonsense from the start… It’s like XML databases or the XML jokers who call (laugh) XML a machine readable format. If you aren’t storing your numbers in standard binary formats and your strings as lead-run length or null terminated, that’s NOT machine readable. That’s like calling interpreted basic or PHP “machine readable” – you have to run it through a parsing code before the CPU can actually perform operations on it directly, that’s not machine readable.

In that way XML really is little more than a sick fad. It’s sure as shine-ola not a efficient data storage method.

But it’s like an idea I had a while back – “CHTML” – “Compiled HTML”… make a compiler format that turns HTML into efficient bytecode for storage server-side and for transmission. Could even pre-apply gzip to it.

Use say one byte for the tag or CDATA, byte to say attribute, null term string for attribute value, lather, rinse, repeat, then nest… since there are only 91 html tags you could use bit 7 as a flag for open or close… or to future-proof it use a word… or bit6 to say “extend to word” like UTF-8 does.

… and have the compiler act like a validator would. I like compilers, especially compilers with strict set rules – why you may ask?

Because in really good compilers with well thought out languages rubbish/broken code never even makes it past the compiler, preventing you from running buggy code in the first place. See why “loose” languages like PHP or even C tend to have endless errors like memory leaks compared to stricter languages like Pascal, Modula or Smalltalk. Even compiled C is so loose that a typo can suddenly act like a new variable – that’s NOT a good thing.

I’m sure the white-space stripping “minification” folks could get behind the idea, even if the code they usually use probably wouldn’t make it past the compiler.

22

Ok, because of you guys i changed every site back to use body as background and not styling the html. And now the same thing happened on the body on another site in Opera AND IE8.

But after figuring out on the last time that it was jQuery i checked if im the only one. And see its a jQuery (brain) bug and happens also on the body tag:
jQuery: » jQuery 1.6.1 Released
#9420 (jQuery 1.6.1 sets background color to white in Opera 11+)
#9450 (Background image disappears on IE8 with jQuery 1.6.1)

Yer yer i know what you wanna say deathshadow60 :stuck_out_tongue:

23

[ot]

but what do I know; I consider Arial the best font ever made for screen use.

Any font who can’t show the difference clearly between I and l is total fail. Yeah, Arial, you fail and hard. :slight_smile:

Shadowbox I assume is a lightbox ripoff? If so that crap pisses me off on most every page it occurs on making me yell “oh for *** sake just let me open the **** image” which is why I’ve gotten in the habit of ALWAYS middle clicking on thumbnails now to give the scripting “The Rock” treatment. (which involves shining, turning, sticking and candying)

This is why I love NoScript. Unlike the 15 minutes it would take me to go through and find every script from some other domain a site is calling and manually white or blacklist them like I have to do in Opera (which is a slow, painful way of surfing the web esp with 15+ tabs open), I can “temporarily” (only within a single browser session) allow only the scripts I need to get some crappily-built site or app to work (yeah, like twitter, can’t wipe its butt without thousands of k’s of JS helping it), by bringing up a list of all those domains and going yes-no-yes-no-no-no-yes-no with a single click.

NoScript: making the web actually work and removing large amounts of javascripted-clickjacked-iframed-meta redirected-@fontfaced-cross domained-silverlightflashmoonpisswhatever-app’d garbage from the web everywhere.

Now if only it could block some of the garbage coming out of CSS3 like transitions and animations and tilted text and I’ll finally have my Luddite plugin![/ot]

24

[ot]

Ah, it blocks the silly @font-face, very nice and when you find something that blocks the other three CSS3 ‘features’ feel free to tell me. ;-)[/ot]

25

you guys have problems - are you surfing with a 56k modem :rolleyes:

26

No EDGE, but that’s partially irrelevant even if I had broadband (not EDGE) I would still disable JS.

27

I cant get the point for doing that. Does eBay, Amazon and the most forums work without js?

28

Sitepoint works great: no ads. I also don’t have to hunt for options when posting: they are all there. And clicking on someone’s name brings me to their profile page, which lists all their sections… I notice when using my “lets-everything-in” browser (Chrome), posting is harder, profiles brings a retarded list up, and then user pages have all the info hidden in tabs.
CSSCreator also doesn’t need Javascript. Everything must go through the server anyway, so JS can only enhance that somehow. Front-end client scripting cannot and should not replace back-end programming and validation. You cannot trust the client, the client is always untrustworthy and tainted.
(I recently filled out a form which, looking at the source code, uses Javascript to validate the fields. Haha. I filled it in through my server, meaning in Lynx, meaning no Javascript. I was very tempted to write “j4v45cr1ptv4l1d4t10n” for my mobile phone number just for the lawlz, since it would have been sent, but it was for a job solicitation so I didn’t)

Amazon.com works great. In fact this is why I’ll order stuff from Amazon instead of some other, local stores (that and the local stores often want to force me to make an account with a password just so I can buy some cheap Logitech mouse… hello, goodbye). With Amazon, you have no idea you’re missing something.

eBay, I have no idea. Never been there.

LinkedIn is terrible when using the keyboard in a graphical browser (this has nothing to do with Javascript: no :focus styles), but when I am reading my mail (I ssh over to the server where I use the mutt client to read my mail) when there’s a notice from LinkedIn and a link for me to click, the default browser there is Elinks (which I don’t like as much as Lynx, but whatever, it works). I seem to be able to do everything. They could use some skip links so I tab less, but whatever.

In fact I do quite a bit of browsing with Lynx or Elinks over ssh. Sitepoint is fairly easy to use with those, except there’s no way to tell a quote from regular text, which sucks. It’s not in the content, but they seem to rely purely on styles. So you get
Quote:
some text
and more text
and more text
where does the quote end
and the reply begin?
you don’t know
have to guess.

Sites that I use that don’t work without JS:
Twitter (but EasyChirp, formerly AccessibleTwitter, can work without it, though misses some things… and they supposedly have a low or no-JS version on their mobile version)
Slideshare (duh)
Youtube (you’d think this was duh but I’m not talking about the videos…) no comments visible without Javascript? Can’t log out without Javascript, but you can log in? What kind of idiocy is that? They may have fixed that recently, who knows… I refuse to let Google link my old YouTube account with an email they happen to have associated with me. I will not link, so no more logging into YouTube for me I guess. Too bad
Flickr seems to kinda work but I don’t do much with it except view someone’s linked photos or browse their galleries
My bank: absolutely nothing works, and in fact I can’t even just turn scripts on… they seem to want to do indecent things with my browser so I use the lets-everything-in browser for banking. Yup, they rely on Javascript, the least secure thing you could possibly rely on. I don’t feel too safe banking online, lawlz.

DeviantArt can’t wipe its own butt without Javascript enabled. It also stores the art across a heap of servers, and they seem to call each other with Javascript for some reason. The menu doesn’t work (well).

Blocking Javascript speeds up the loading of fat-lady-on-the-beach web sites that seem to spend an inordinate amount of time calling other servers like facebook’s or some weather site’s just to load a bunch of unasked-for widgets and junk. Like, with JS on, in Chrome, I’ll be sitting waiting like 30 seconds for a page to load, when all I’m waiting for is someone to get a 200OK for some goofy “read about us on Facebook” iframe. Christ, if I want to connect to facebook I’ll go there myself. And so anytime the weather widget (wow, great, it’s telling me what the weather is… so does my window!) is sitting there trying to load, it’s wasting my time.

Anytime some bloataceous script is loading to round box corners and make a slow retarded fade-in/fade-out on stuff I’m trying to click on, I want it blocked. I didn’t go to that site to ooh and aah over a 15-second fade-with-music freaking dropdown menu, did I?

I recently found a list of article summaries about stuff like research on Agile design, XP and whatnot… there were a few usability links. One study of 300 people had them use an original site, and another group visited another version of it which had more graphical decorations, fancier menus and a bit more art.

The participants all viewed the prettier site more favourably than the plainer functional site. They even said they thought it was easier to use. However it turned out they took longer to do tasks, did more tasks wrong, and mis-read statements on the site more with the prettier one. I thought that was funny, because how a user feels about their success on a website is almost as important as how much success they actually had… so kinda sad to see people were basically tricked into thinking they did better when they did worse.

So I’m aware that people who get pretty shiny effects tend to think well of those things, ask for those things, and want those things. Maybe I’m aware of why I’m on a site (and maybe that’s because I’m a web developer?), so I’m more conscious of get-in get-out get-done. Anything that slows me down or breaks my flow earns my scorn. Grandma, though… prolly thinks it’s fine. And she’s not going to turn off Javascript for anything.
Nor do I expect her to or think she should. But if she doesn’t have it for some reason, she’d damn well better be able to use my site, and if she’s never been there before, she should never know the difference.

29

They’ve never gotten over the demise of the VT100.

30

The only problem being I’m not paying for a 22mbps connection to have websites that only have about 5k of content I actually give a **** about end up behaving as slow or slower than they did fifteen years ago at 33.6kbps just because some joker thought that 500K of pretty pictures, 400k of javascript for NOTHING useful, 100k of markup and CSS bloat totaling hundreds of separate files was “cool”… practical, or again, even usable.

Bloated slow buggy bull that frankly makes websites LESS usable – like lightbox idiocy, like ajax tabs breaking normal browser navigation, like buggy slow webmail “applications” that are nowhere near as useful as webmail was a decade ago without that crap, consumes five times the bandwidth (sold by the code junkies to the suits as using less bandwidth – <cosby>RIGHT</cosby>) to the point that someone who stopped using mail clients as soon as web mail was practical a decade later has stopped using crap like hotmail, Y! or gmail and has gone back to using old-school clients like Thunderbird or Opera M2.

Now I’m NOT saying all the scripted stuff is pointless – google maps, even Facebook are forgivable sins to a degree (most of Facebooks issues stemming from the hoops they have to jump through to get around XSS blocks)… But idiotic jquery bloat for NOTHING useful that in many cases interferes with actually using the page, or worse is just blowing tens of K on doing bytes worth of CSS’ job… not so much.

See why I call sites with megabyte plus pageloads built with 80-200 separate files “the road to failure”.

Of course, that’s before we even talk what it costs the site owners to host it JHVH forbid it sees real traffic.

31

They’ve never gotten over the demise of the VT100.

Those were the days…

YOU DAMNED KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

32

How quaint. News flash: the web has become an interactive, visual medium - film at eleven.

But seriously, this “one size fits all” attitude is rather blinkered. If you’re putting together a site designed to present various essays about the use of metaphor in À la recherche du temps perdu, then “all content, no fancy stuff” is certainly the way to go. But if you’re putting together a website for Justin Bieber fans, that approach is going to yield an “average time on site” of about 1.3s, with a 100% bounce rate.

These days, most people aren’t going to spend much time on a site that resembles a 19-Century newspaper - all text and perhaps a line drawing to illustrate the main story.

33

The problem is that if you want to sell a product it has too look modern and fancy. If the site looks like it where 10 years old nobody stays.

You guys are to much pc and programming freaks. You need to think like the normal user. Opening the images from a gallery all in a new tab and go through the tabs and close them? Sure its the way i do it and you guys. But let me tell you something: From all the people i know, know 3 that the mouse has a middle click. Who from the normal users know that you can click the wheel?

Tabs in the browser? My parents are now since 13 years also everyday in the web. My mother was selling everyday stuff in ebay. But until today they don’t understand this tab think and can’t handle it. They minimize the browser and open another one. And i know a lot of people who do that.

Most people i know make still after years a double click on links.

And for what is my 64.000 mbit/s flat god if not for surfing? Everything opens in one second and the flat costs $25.

34

Nasty bug - I hope they fix it quick.

35

I’m NOT saying it has to resemble that – none of us are. Notice I’m saying Javascript for NOTHING, bloated libraries for NOTHING, presentational images for NOTHING.

If it’s doing something useful that does not get in my way, and/or has graceful degradation as the gee ain’t it neat bull is turned off since it was put together with progressive enhancement, and stays within sizes and filecounts that are actually practical to deploy – then fine.

But slapping together two or three giant scripting libraries to use two or three times as much javascript as it would be without the libraries, basically using 300-400k of scripting to do 20-40k of scriptings job – that’s what we’re talking about.

Or the PSD jockey who takes a layers out of their pretty picture as a ‘slices’ and runs it directly into their layout as a 50-100k alpha .png’s each resulting in hundreds of K of images, when if they pre-composited and built for the web instead of for photoshop they could get the SAME APPEARANCE using 5 to 20k images using a third as many files…

Or just crapping all over accessibility and functionality using garbage like framesets, ajax based tabs, and a bunch of other manure that amounts to useless bloat – that quite often BREAKS normal page functionality. The old rule about scripting that it seems many are forgetting; it should enhance functionality, NOT replace it.

Those last few playing to this irrational fear it seems some developers have of page loads – maybe if they didn’t waste 100k of html and several dozens slow “onload” for nothing scripts to do 8 to 20k of HTML’s job, didn’t have a hundred or separate files linked into every page, and practiced separation of presentation from content to leverage CSS caching most of the appearance, that “dreaded” pageload would be a non-event.

But that would make too much sense.

36

Looks like the fixes are already committed in the upcoming 1.6.2 release.

37

Gahugafugah? Can someone translate that into English for me? :rofl:

38

Oh, come on. Can’t really argue with his point, so you make fun of his syntax? Is that really the best you can do? I’ll wager his English is better than your German. “For 13 years, my parents have been using the web daily.”

39

For NOTHING in your opinion. To you, something may be pointless bloat. To others, it may be what makes the web a different place than it was a decade ago, and they want it. Sorry you don’t like it.

Say, isn’t that a windmill over there? :wink:

40

whut? omigod where? kill it! kill it! SANCHO KILL IT WITH FIRE AAAAAAAHHHH

oh wait, I thought you said wolf spider with babies