4 ms·

A little backstory: They stole my site (socketstudios.com) which showed up on my analytics as they for got to remove it. They also left the contolling javascrip

A little backstory: They stole my site (socketstudios.com) which showed up on my analytics as they for got to remove it. They also left the contolling javascript file on my server. I modified it to load images of dogs that have no idea what they are doing.

dutchbrit 14y ago
Classic way to "get them back" ;)
VuongN 14y ago
Did you try to contact them? (By them, I mean the site owner. I feel like this is a solo operation) On other notes, there's no stopping you from replacing the content of this area where you tell your own version of their description: (from site via Google Translate) "We have been working since 1999, incorporating technology and knowledge towards the design and communication, both institutional and business."
- CWIZO 14y ago
  I don't see why he should (if that is what you are implying), they didn't bother contacting him (apparently).
  - yock 14y ago
    Because that's how the law works?
    - WalterSear 14y ago
      I don't see any lawyers involved.
- SocketStudios 14y ago
  Where would the fun be in that?
  - VuongN 14y ago
    You're actually quite nice about it when you can actually do a lot more damages.
cantbecool 14y ago
What's an active URL for your personal photo site?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- SocketStudios 14y ago
  It's not live yet.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
crikli 14y ago
Tangent: these kind of sites (the site that was stolen from), I'll call them "concept" sites, make me want to throatpunch a baby. If you are seeking to demonstrate your jQuery/HTML5/CSS3 skillz then do it in a way that has some applicable context. Don't break so far from established usage conventions that users have to invest their the majority of their focus figuring out the site at the expense of examining the content. After looking at several panels my understanding of what you do is still a guess. But I think you're a designer of some kind. If you are, the problem is that your site told me you care more about cool/flashy/pretty more than ease-of-use/user experience. As someone who engages designers on a weekly basis, that is not a positive differentiator.
- SocketStudios 14y ago
  Thanks for that. It was a 'concept' site largely for my own amusement (and to teach myself a little bit of js). I do have a private portfolio site that shows more of my work and has no javascript in it at all.
  - Loque_k 14y ago
    Hmm, I kinda like it - and I tend to dislike sites that break conventions... its simple enough that it works really well for me.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - jthayne 14y ago
      Would be nice though if contact information and info about the company was easier to get to. It is only available on the initial page or after scrolling through the entire portfolio (at least I couldn't find it anywhere else). At least if the site were designed to draw in business, that would be the case. It definitely is not obvious.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    I like the aesthetic, but I found the navigation to be confusing. It gives the impression that you're simply navigating a 2D grid because there's no indication that the rows slide independently of each other (and reset after switching to another row). So it was pretty disorienting to get to the end of the top row, go down, and then not be able to go left. I know you just said it doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd offer something a little more constructive than "it's too flashy".
Steuard 14y ago
Using Firefox 12 with NoScript installed, your site is entirely unviewable. Even in its most permissive mode (which works for the vast majority of sites), NoScript does block cross-site scripts that it considers dangerous. On your site, I get this in my Error Console: "[NoScript] Blocking cross-site Javascript served from http://flesler-plugins.googlecode.com/files/jquery.scrollTo-1.4.2-min.js http://flesler-plugins.googlecode.com/files/jquery.scrollTo-... with wrong type info application/empty, attachment; filename="jquery.scrollTo-1.4.2-min.js" and included by http://socketstudios.com/ http://socketstudios.com/ I suspect that fixing the error mentioned there would make your site usable to more people (and more secure). But can I put in a plug for web design via progressive enhancement, rather than web design that just gives a blank grey page with a border and a few non-functional buttons if the scripts fail to load?
- SocketStudios 14y ago
  Sorry, forgive my ignorance (I'm a designer not really a developer) but are you saying I should host all my JS myself? As for the fall back to a working site should JS be disabled, or the scripts fail to load you're entirely right of course. There is a lot I could still do to the site, but it serves no real purpose and was largely just an experiment so isn't very high on my to-do list at the moment.
  - eloisius 14y ago
    Using a CDN is usually appropriate, but not hotlinking someone's site.
    - rorrr 14y ago
      That's not true. Linking to jQuery stuff on Google's CDN is widely accepted. If you're using Noscript, don't act surprised when modern javascript websites break for you.
      - sedev 14y ago
        I'm using NoScript because JavaScript is * a privilege, not a right * a huge security vulnerability * a huge privacy vulnerability You gotta earn epsilon trust to get me to whitelist your site for JS. If your site is 100% broken with JS off? You haven't earned that trust; you've instead told me that you're sloppy. Double points if your site is something that could get its basic functions done with JS - I have seen blogs, sites whose job is present straight text, that completely break with JS off. What that tells me is that I should be deeply suspicious of the technical chops of the people responsible. It's not like it's hard to earn epsilon trust! Slap in a < noscript > element that says "here's what our site does, please turn on JS" is usually enough. "Please turn on JS" by itself, though, is not. You don't have to cater to people who have JS turned off - you just have to not give us the middle finger! When site designers let their sites break when JS is off, that tells me that they're not worth my time.
junto 14y ago
You should minify that JS and CSS.

dutchbrit 14y ago

Classic way to "get them back" ;)

VuongN 14y ago

Did you try to contact them? (By them, I mean the site owner. I feel like this is a solo operation) On other notes, there's no stopping you from replacing the content of this area where you tell your own version of their description: (from site via Google Translate) "We have been working since 1999, incorporating technology and knowledge towards the design and communication, both institutional and business."

CWIZO 14y ago
I don't see why he should (if that is what you are implying), they didn't bother contacting him (apparently).
- yock 14y ago
  Because that's how the law works?
  - WalterSear 14y ago
    I don't see any lawyers involved.
SocketStudios 14y ago
Where would the fun be in that?
- VuongN 14y ago
  You're actually quite nice about it when you can actually do a lot more damages.

cantbecool 14y ago

What's an active URL for your personal photo site?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
SocketStudios 14y ago
It's not live yet.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

crikli 14y ago

Tangent: these kind of sites (the site that was stolen from), I'll call them "concept" sites, make me want to throatpunch a baby. If you are seeking to demonstrate your jQuery/HTML5/CSS3 skillz then do it in a way that has some applicable context. Don't break so far from established usage conventions that users have to invest their the majority of their focus figuring out the site at the expense of examining the content. After looking at several panels my understanding of what you do is still a guess. But I think you're a designer of some kind. If you are, the problem is that your site told me you care more about cool/flashy/pretty more than ease-of-use/user experience. As someone who engages designers on a weekly basis, that is not a positive differentiator.

SocketStudios 14y ago
Thanks for that. It was a 'concept' site largely for my own amusement (and to teach myself a little bit of js). I do have a private portfolio site that shows more of my work and has no javascript in it at all.
- Loque_k 14y ago
  Hmm, I kinda like it - and I tend to dislike sites that break conventions... its simple enough that it works really well for me.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jthayne 14y ago
    Would be nice though if contact information and info about the company was easier to get to. It is only available on the initial page or after scrolling through the entire portfolio (at least I couldn't find it anywhere else). At least if the site were designed to draw in business, that would be the case. It definitely is not obvious.
- mistercow 14y ago
  I like the aesthetic, but I found the navigation to be confusing. It gives the impression that you're simply navigating a 2D grid because there's no indication that the rows slide independently of each other (and reset after switching to another row). So it was pretty disorienting to get to the end of the top row, go down, and then not be able to go left. I know you just said it doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd offer something a little more constructive than "it's too flashy".

Steuard 14y ago

Using Firefox 12 with NoScript installed, your site is entirely unviewable. Even in its most permissive mode (which works for the vast majority of sites), NoScript does block cross-site scripts that it considers dangerous. On your site, I get this in my Error Console: "[NoScript] Blocking cross-site Javascript served from http://flesler-plugins.googlecode.com/files/jquery.scrollTo-1.4.2-min.js http://flesler-plugins.googlecode.com/files/jquery.scrollTo-... with wrong type info application/empty, attachment; filename="jquery.scrollTo-1.4.2-min.js" and included by http://socketstudios.com/ http://socketstudios.com/ I suspect that fixing the error mentioned there would make your site usable to more people (and more secure). But can I put in a plug for web design via progressive enhancement, rather than web design that just gives a blank grey page with a border and a few non-functional buttons if the scripts fail to load?

SocketStudios 14y ago
Sorry, forgive my ignorance (I'm a designer not really a developer) but are you saying I should host all my JS myself? As for the fall back to a working site should JS be disabled, or the scripts fail to load you're entirely right of course. There is a lot I could still do to the site, but it serves no real purpose and was largely just an experiment so isn't very high on my to-do list at the moment.
- eloisius 14y ago
  Using a CDN is usually appropriate, but not hotlinking someone's site.
  - rorrr 14y ago
    That's not true. Linking to jQuery stuff on Google's CDN is widely accepted. If you're using Noscript, don't act surprised when modern javascript websites break for you.
    - sedev 14y ago
      I'm using NoScript because JavaScript is * a privilege, not a right * a huge security vulnerability * a huge privacy vulnerability You gotta earn epsilon trust to get me to whitelist your site for JS. If your site is 100% broken with JS off? You haven't earned that trust; you've instead told me that you're sloppy. Double points if your site is something that could get its basic functions done with JS - I have seen blogs, sites whose job is present straight text, that completely break with JS off. What that tells me is that I should be deeply suspicious of the technical chops of the people responsible. It's not like it's hard to earn epsilon trust! Slap in a < noscript > element that says "here's what our site does, please turn on JS" is usually enough. "Please turn on JS" by itself, though, is not. You don't have to cater to people who have JS turned off - you just have to not give us the middle finger! When site designers let their sites break when JS is off, that tells me that they're not worth my time.

junto 14y ago

You should minify that JS and CSS.