3 ms·
I like the presentation and I understand the reason why people would want to use this thing. That said: Please.. Show static content first. Don't do the Blogge
by darklajid 13y ago
I like the presentation and I understand the reason why people would want to use this thing.
That said: Please.. Show static content first. Don't do the Blogger thing. That looks
- ridiculous
- stupid
- like Geocities did
In other words: For 'apps', games etc. this looks really neat. But a website, say a blog..., shouldn't need to show a progress indicator before any content shows up.
- zackbloom 13y agoYou could also use it just for ajax navigation.
- afschwartz 13y agoWe totally agree. PACE doesn't block or change the rendering of the page at all. You should use PACE if you want to provide your users with additional information about the progress and activity of the page load and future ajax requests.
- hnriot 13y agothis isn't doing anything like that!! It's just reporting progress, the content still loads just fine. do you really need to use a list of adjectives like that, if you don't understand something at least try to be a little polite about it.
- pyre 13y agoThe poster you are replying to is using those bullet points to describe the loading bar used on Blogger, which probably has nothing to do with this loading bar other than the fact that they are both loading bars. It's being pointed out as a poor usage of loading bars for anyone that might considering using this one (i.e. "please don't use this tool in a place where it makes no sense").
- Nux 13y agoCan't upvote this enough!
- zackbloom 13y agoI don't really think this is what is at play here. There is no doubt that delivering a complete web page (when possible) is often preferable. The question here is, if your page is going to take x milliseconds to load, will it seem faster with a progress bar? The research says it does.