6 ms·
The New jQuery Site
- bakli 14y agoLooks cleaner and much better!
- pkorzeniewski 14y agobox-shadow... box-shadow everywhere :)
- timmillwood 14y agoA little odd why they ditched Drupal (a CMS) for Wordpress (a blogging platform).
- dphnx 14y agoWordpress has been more than a blogging platform for quite some years now.
- grey-area 14y agoMaybe they found Wordpress to be simpler and easier to extend/use than Drupal? Drupal can be pretty unwieldy sometimes, esp. on big sites, here's one that moved away and why: http://erickennedy.org/Drupal-7-Reasons-to-Switch http://erickennedy.org/Drupal-7-Reasons-to-Switch If all you need is a few template variations, a theme, and lots of editable content, Wordpress is a good choice as a basic CMS which is user friendly. You can easily cache the results and performance is fine; it actually makes a pretty good CMS for basic sites.
- kitsune_ 14y agoThis guy switched to a web application framework, not another CMS. Whenever Drupal is discussed, I see people comparing it to Rails, Django and other web application frameworks. I don't get it. The CMS market is entirely different from the custom web application market. Most web sites run on some form of content management system: Day CQ5, SiteCore, Typo3, OpenText, Umbraco, ExpressionEngine, WordPress, Drupal, DotNetNuke, eZ, epiServer and so on. This is a huge market. People who make the above comparison seem to be guys that have started web development with Drupal or Wordpress, and progressed to create ever more complex solutions over time. Then later they discover Rails. Congratulations. I'm of the opinion, that ultimately, all CMS suck in one way or another, I hate them with a passion, but compared to most, Drupal is a shining beacon of light and reason. Seriously. From a financial perspective, custom web applications usually do not make sense for businesses who want a complex web site. Most companies are also hesitant to shell out 200k+ on an untested, custom made piece of software developed by a small company. Compared to that, a SiteCore solution with its 60k license looks cheaper and more reliable.
- bhauer 14y agoThis isn't all that new, right? I feel it's been this way for at least several weeks. (I know, new is open to interpretation, but generally when I see something on the HN front page, it is from within a day or two.)
- rexf 14y agoCorrect, this design went live weeks ago (i.e. not within the past couple days).
- sergiotapia 14y agoI really like the transition the web is going through to a flat design. Focused 100% on content and highlighting the important bits using proper spacing, and typography relationships. Kudos on the website. I love how it highlights crossbrowser, lightweight and features CSS3 selectors.
- eykanal 14y agoOh, the irony... the new jQuery website layout is completely borked in IE 8. So much for cross-browser compatibility. On a different note, I love how they have Stack Overflow listed in their "support" links. It's also cool that they're pushing CDN usage of jQuery more than the download version (based on relative space given to each on the home page).
- dscrd 14y agoIE8 was released in March 2009. On that year, chromium 2.0 and firefox 3.5. Did you test it on those too?
- randomdrake 14y agoIE 8 still holds around 15-20% browser share last I checked. For something as ubiquitous and oft-used as jQuery, it is surprising it wasn't tested.
- SG- 14y agoIE8 likely doesn't hold 15-20% browser share on jquery.com.
- eykanal 14y agoThis is Microsoft XP's latest version of IE, as 9 and 10 don't run on XP. Note that XP is still ridiculously prevalent, particularly in large corporations: http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0 http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share....
- radio4fan 14y agoLooks quite nice. On a high-traffic site like this, I'm surprised they've not really addressed performance. Currently: Scripts at the top, not the bottom CSS not concatenated and minimized JS not minimized GZIP not enabled on the server Icons not in a sprite sheet Also, invalid HTML. I know, I need to chill out.
- emn13 14y ago... and it is indeed rather slow for such a simple site.
- gbog 14y agoI hope they carefully ponder the coding convention they use in the examples, because so many people will reproduce them. For instance I don't love the ( parens spacing ), is there a good reason for these added spaces?
- netaustin 14y agoAs long as it's internally consistent, I'm OK with it; that space is common enough (WordPress core style employs spaces like that).
- tericho 14y agoThat's just a standard the team uses, all of the code in the source is formatted that way.
- alphadogg 14y agoAt least once a week I am gobsmacked by how excruciatingly and pointlessly picky developers can be. Want to start a real stupid waste of time fight? Bring up code standards. Not that having a standard is wrong, but rather just how inflexible and dogmatic developers can suddenly become when you bring up tabbing, spaces or other first-world problems, developer-style.
- marco-fiset 14y agoNothing new here. This design is up for at least a couple of weeks already.
- jdrummond 14y agoThought the same. Clicked on the link and thought I would see something new. No luck.
- beeux 14y agoI don't like it. For me it is really hard to find something there
- To1ne 14y agoNo longer a konami code. http://konamicodesites.com/ http://konamicodesites.com/
- brador 14y agoHere's the thing. That header is huge and still exists on the docs pages. I'm sure it looks great on a iMac, but on a 13" screen it takes up 1/3 of the space. Every page click on the API docs requires a scroll down to get to the juicy content below. My finger gets tired. I love the PHP.net site docs. No header, just meat. Edit: A quick look around and as a reminder to myself, best I could find (fast + useful + instant search): http://www.jqapi.com/#p=width http://www.jqapi.com/#p=width
- adnam 14y agoI just went to check there weren't any ninjas or rock stars this time.
- jdrummond 14y agoActually, according to webarchive, this version is up since the 24th of Jan. 23th Snapshot: http://web.archive.org/web/20130122230349/http://jquery.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130122230349/http://jquery.com/ 24th Snapshot: http://web.archive.org/web/20130124012815/http://jquery.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130124012815/http://jquery.com/
- cgarvey 14y agoI love how critical everyone is being of this site, despite the fact this organization has saved us all so much effort and time during our careers. I'm easily willing to forgive a few browser compatibility bugs considering what they've done for the Web. I'm also happy they've updated their site, it was a long time coming and I think it looks great, certainly an improvement in my eyes.
- ergo14 14y agoWhat exactly did they "do to the web", that other JS frameworks do not provide? Because I could name few things like requirejs/cometd that came from for example dojo foundation (dojotoolkit), that did influence the way people work with javascript.
- moogleii 14y agoI don't think he suggested anywhere that other frameworks didn't contribute. Sounds like you're just trying to pick a fight.
- ergo14 14y agoNo, I'm just curious what is the rationale behind words like the poster above me. I wouldn't call having different view on things picking a fight.
- MoOmer 14y agoFor one, their documentation has consistently been accessible to beginners. Other frameworks might have had some crossover functionality, but Jq wrapped it all up in a neat, concise, package complete with a supportive community and excellent documentation that takes away the intimidation for new entrants. Anyone who has written an 'Ajax' connection call in JavaScript can attest to the relief it has brought on that front alone. DOM manipulation within your scripts, without having to patch together different libraries in an unreadable mess is nice too. I've done limited things with the tool, and I can see its benefits clearly - maybe because I see the tool as a curated forest, where those packages you mentioned are like scattered, but awesome in their own right, trees. Forgive me for the short response, I'm on a phone.
- nollidge 14y agoTotally weird observation, but this is the first time I'm seeing an aesthetic quite like the background [0] on that fat gray header area - sort of gritty like a blackboard, but yet nice and gridlike? [0] Link: http://jquery.com/jquery-wp-content/themes/jquery/images/dark-grey-tile.png http://jquery.com/jquery-wp-content/themes/jquery/images/dar...
- kristofferR 14y agoIt's not too uncommon, I've seen it used quite a lot of times (can't remember where though). There's a free Creative Commons texture you can use available here: http://subtlepatterns.com/3px-tile/ http://subtlepatterns.com/3px-tile/
- ricardobeat 14y ago32kb gzipped and minified is not lightweight at all, it's over 200kb of code in a not so readable style. Why is that the most proeminent "feature"?
- dguaraglia 14y agoThat's still there from the olden days when 'small' was a feature when compared to 'heavy' stuff like YUI, Dojo and all that. Nowadays it's a bit of an irrelevance, unless you are on a mobile browser (and chances are if you are on a mobile browser you'll be using jQuery Mobile which is freaking slow even on my somewhat new Android phone)
- ricardobeat 14y agoIt's absolutely not irrelevant - mobile usage is growing exponentially, in many areas it is nearing 50% usage, and mobile-oriented libraries like jQuery mobile are only used for apps, not websites (fortunately - they suck). Usage from 3G/4G devices (tablets, mobile routers/modems, etc) is also growing quickly. Optimizing delivery is important even on the desktop. Not that jQuery's 32kb will make a world of difference, but that's not a good mindset to be spreading around.