4 ms·

Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? I mean the site comes in at around 500kb transferred. That's not small, but it's also not obscene

Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? I mean the site comes in at around 500kb transferred. That's not small, but it's also not obscenely large. A single large-ish image can easily blow that out of the water. Yeah, it could afford to lose some weight in the javascript (although looking at it now, i'm not sure they can. much of the size of the javascript is string literals for all of the options for each phrase), but for a one-off website that doesn't have any ads or source of income, i think it's great. The author clearly wanted to make something cool, and doesn't want to spend a significant amount of time or effort optimizing it perfectly since he probably won't make a dime from it.

kps 10y ago
> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? Inability to select the text.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  That's because the author set the css property `user-select` to `none`. Why? I'm not sure, but that has nothing to do with any of the libraries listed, or even javascript at all.
  - chain18 10y ago
    I assume it is because you can click on the commands to cycle through the examples. If you didn't have this css property set you would end up selecting text.
zeveb 10y ago
> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? With JavaScript turned off (an essential security precaution), no text is visible at all, which is a bit of a problem. > I mean the site comes in at around 500kb transferred. That's not small, but it's also not obscenely large. The actual content on the page really isn't that large. I got too bored to actually complete this, but you can see an example of what it could have looked like at http://pastebin.com/DBgK4Tv9 http://pastebin.com/DBgK4Tv9 It could have progressively enhanced itself, taking the plain-text HTML page, parsing out the choices in the em tags (which could of course have had classes attached to mark them as choices, or even to indicate classes of choices, e.g. 'day-name'). It would have been a perfectly useful tool for people without JavaScript; it would have been perfectly useful printed on a page. And, frankly, it would almost certainly have been a lot smaller than 500K. That doesn't take away from how cool it is: the author did a nice, exhaustive job (so exhausted I got exhausted trying to recreate it). He should be commended for it. But we should all reflect on how we got into a situation in which the easiest thing for him to do was the wrong thing, and how we can instead get into a situation where the easy thing is the right thing.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  Well, I disagree with you on disabling javascript being an "essential security precaution", but that's another discussion... As for the rest, there's also the point that the author probably wouldn't have done this that way. That seems like a dumb sentence, but hopefully i can explain it. This kind of thing isn't going to make any money, even with ads this is an niche thing and would probably end up making him tens of dollars at most (unless he got really lucky). That means that most likely his motivation was to "show off" a bit. Show potential employers that he can use those technologies, show off his professional skill, and at the same time solve a problem that he saw himself. So most likely it wouldn't have been made without those technologies. But either way, I don't think that this is the wrong way of doing things. I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead. Yeah, for a simple company website, or something which should be accessed by as many people as possible like government websites, PE is still very alive, but for everything else, it's done. Javascript is part of the platform, and disabling javascript but still expecting a fully useful web is like disabling python and still expecting all of your linux tools to work the same (after all, those same devs could have written their code in C, then progressively enhanced it with python). It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. Disabling javascript is not the solution to security issues.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead … Javascript is part of the platform It shouldn't be, it really shouldn't be. The web should be about GETing, PUTting, POSTting & DELET(E)ing resources (i.e., documents); it shouldn't about GETting executables. There's definitely a place in the world for a well-thought out universal executable platform, but HTTP + HTML + CSS + JavaScript ain't it. Progressive enhancement is a good thing: a document which used JavaScript to become a better, live version of itself would be better than an ASCII list of neat things doable with the Google interface; it'd be better than a static HTML document. And it'd be better than a single-page app. > It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. JavaScript delenda est.
    - 10y ago
barnacs 10y ago
> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? User experience. - long, unskippable animation on site load - navigation keys (arrows, page up/down) do not work at all without changing focus first (which takes 4 tabs) - navigation keys do not work at all in category list (items can't be selected or scrolled) - mousing over items produces unexpected results (text changing, distracting animation) These may not be caused by the technologies per say, but more generally by the 'form over function' attitude. Why does everything on the web have to be so fancy these days?
hengheng 10y ago
Does it work on screen readers? I mean the site is trying to explain voice control, after all.
- Klathmon 10y ago
  yes actually it does! It needs some work with focusable things, I needed to use the special navigation keys (I tested with ChromeVox on the desktop) to get to the lists on the left and right, and to click on anything i had to use the special "click" keybinding instead of pressing enter, but it's 100% usable. On android it works great, about the same as any other website or app (i used the android accessibility screen reader to test) Modern screen readers are just as capable as the rest of the browser, the only place they fall short is in image-heavy sites that don't have alt tags. Obviously you can greatly help by adding things like aria tags, and using markup as much as possible, but it's not like they just don't run javascript.
  - 10dpd 10y ago
    Note this doesn't work with VoiceOver at all.
    - Klathmon 10y ago
      When you say it doesn't work at all, what do you mean? There's no reason it won't read at least the "ok google" at the top of the screen, but navigating around probably won't work here. I don't have a mac on hand right now, but VoiceOver relies heavily on tags, so i'd bet the problem is that he is using divs for everything. Make each thing on the left render in an <li> and use header elements at the top of each block of commands and it should work fine.
hengheng 10y ago
Does it work on screen readers? I mean the site is trying to explain voice control, after all.
LastZactionHero 10y ago
At the time of this comment, looks like the site's been hugged to death. So without knowing what's on it, maybe a smaller size could have kept it from falling over.
- xeromal 10y ago
  You could load static html and have it on google drive without a huge of death. :P
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  I can't wait until the web becomes decentralized so there is no Slashdot/Hacker News effect anymore. The more popular a site, the more people mirroring is a much more sane setup than the current silos.

kps 10y ago

> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? Inability to select the text.

Klathmon 10y ago
That's because the author set the css property `user-select` to `none`. Why? I'm not sure, but that has nothing to do with any of the libraries listed, or even javascript at all.
- chain18 10y ago
  I assume it is because you can click on the commands to cycle through the examples. If you didn't have this css property set you would end up selecting text.

zeveb 10y ago

> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? With JavaScript turned off (an essential security precaution), no text is visible at all, which is a bit of a problem. > I mean the site comes in at around 500kb transferred. That's not small, but it's also not obscenely large. The actual content on the page really isn't that large. I got too bored to actually complete this, but you can see an example of what it could have looked like at http://pastebin.com/DBgK4Tv9 http://pastebin.com/DBgK4Tv9 It could have progressively enhanced itself, taking the plain-text HTML page, parsing out the choices in the em tags (which could of course have had classes attached to mark them as choices, or even to indicate classes of choices, e.g. 'day-name'). It would have been a perfectly useful tool for people without JavaScript; it would have been perfectly useful printed on a page. And, frankly, it would almost certainly have been a lot smaller than 500K. That doesn't take away from how cool it is: the author did a nice, exhaustive job (so exhausted I got exhausted trying to recreate it). He should be commended for it. But we should all reflect on how we got into a situation in which the easiest thing for him to do was the wrong thing, and how we can instead get into a situation where the easy thing is the right thing.

Klathmon 10y ago
Well, I disagree with you on disabling javascript being an "essential security precaution", but that's another discussion... As for the rest, there's also the point that the author probably wouldn't have done this that way. That seems like a dumb sentence, but hopefully i can explain it. This kind of thing isn't going to make any money, even with ads this is an niche thing and would probably end up making him tens of dollars at most (unless he got really lucky). That means that most likely his motivation was to "show off" a bit. Show potential employers that he can use those technologies, show off his professional skill, and at the same time solve a problem that he saw himself. So most likely it wouldn't have been made without those technologies. But either way, I don't think that this is the wrong way of doing things. I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead. Yeah, for a simple company website, or something which should be accessed by as many people as possible like government websites, PE is still very alive, but for everything else, it's done. Javascript is part of the platform, and disabling javascript but still expecting a fully useful web is like disabling python and still expecting all of your linux tools to work the same (after all, those same devs could have written their code in C, then progressively enhanced it with python). It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. Disabling javascript is not the solution to security issues.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > I know that many disagree with me, but for most "web apps" progressive enhancement is dead … Javascript is part of the platform It shouldn't be, it really shouldn't be. The web should be about GETing, PUTting, POSTting & DELET(E)ing resources (i.e., documents); it shouldn't about GETting executables. There's definitely a place in the world for a well-thought out universal executable platform, but HTTP + HTML + CSS + JavaScript ain't it. Progressive enhancement is a good thing: a document which used JavaScript to become a better, live version of itself would be better than an ASCII list of neat things doable with the Google interface; it'd be better than a static HTML document. And it'd be better than a single-page app. > It's part of the platform, and it's here to stay. JavaScript delenda est.
  - 10y ago

barnacs 10y ago

> Do you actually have a problem that any of those are causing? User experience. - long, unskippable animation on site load - navigation keys (arrows, page up/down) do not work at all without changing focus first (which takes 4 tabs) - navigation keys do not work at all in category list (items can't be selected or scrolled) - mousing over items produces unexpected results (text changing, distracting animation) These may not be caused by the technologies per say, but more generally by the 'form over function' attitude. Why does everything on the web have to be so fancy these days?

hengheng 10y ago

Does it work on screen readers? I mean the site is trying to explain voice control, after all.

Klathmon 10y ago
yes actually it does! It needs some work with focusable things, I needed to use the special navigation keys (I tested with ChromeVox on the desktop) to get to the lists on the left and right, and to click on anything i had to use the special "click" keybinding instead of pressing enter, but it's 100% usable. On android it works great, about the same as any other website or app (i used the android accessibility screen reader to test) Modern screen readers are just as capable as the rest of the browser, the only place they fall short is in image-heavy sites that don't have alt tags. Obviously you can greatly help by adding things like aria tags, and using markup as much as possible, but it's not like they just don't run javascript.
- 10dpd 10y ago
  Note this doesn't work with VoiceOver at all.
  - Klathmon 10y ago
    When you say it doesn't work at all, what do you mean? There's no reason it won't read at least the "ok google" at the top of the screen, but navigating around probably won't work here. I don't have a mac on hand right now, but VoiceOver relies heavily on tags, so i'd bet the problem is that he is using divs for everything. Make each thing on the left render in an <li> and use header elements at the top of each block of commands and it should work fine.

hengheng 10y ago

Does it work on screen readers? I mean the site is trying to explain voice control, after all.

LastZactionHero 10y ago

At the time of this comment, looks like the site's been hugged to death. So without knowing what's on it, maybe a smaller size could have kept it from falling over.

xeromal 10y ago
You could load static html and have it on google drive without a huge of death. :P
brokenmachine 10y ago
I can't wait until the web becomes decentralized so there is no Slashdot/Hacker News effect anymore. The more popular a site, the more people mirroring is a much more sane setup than the current silos.