4 ms·
The site seems to be getting hammered, and once it loaded I struggled to read it due to the low-contrast font/bg-color selection. Here is a gist of the code: h
by jaytaylor 13y ago
The site seems to be getting hammered, and once it loaded I struggled to read it due to the low-contrast font/bg-color selection.
Here is a gist of the code: https://gist.github.com/jaytaylor/8102304 https://gist.github.com/jaytaylor/8102304
- acqq 13y agoThe site has 5 MB of png files which show... well nothing relevant to the topic. And the content of the page is mostly unfiltered output of some strangely presented program pieces. I would be glad to read that Sanmayce reads this or some similar input and then starts to think about making his output really more accessible. But I guess he likes it as it is. Bon Appétit.
- gwu78 13y ago"I would be glad that [webpage author] ... starts to think about making his output really more accessible." This is how I feel when I hit a webpage that offers zero content without having to execute JavaScript in a browser first. For whatever it's worth, this page loads in less than 1 second and looks fine in my text-only browser. I guess in this case the web developer has chosen to recklessly punish users who never disable images or JavaScript, in the same way some web developers recklessly punish users who never enable such "essential features". If the user's objective is to read and perhaps download some source code (as in this "article"), there is arguably no reason that images or JavaScript should be necessary. "recklessly" here means the web developer does not intend to make users suffer but he knows some users will suffer if he makes a certain design choice and, knowing this, he makes that choice anyway