4 ms·

But $ curl http://clarkduvall.com % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current

by gavinpc 13y ago

But $ curl http://clarkduvall.com % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 631 100 631 0 0 6981 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 10516 <!doctype html> <html> <head> <title>Clark DuVall</title> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/images/favicon.ico"> <meta name="description" content="Clark DuVall's website o' fun!"> <meta property="og:image" content="http://clarkduvall.com/images/image.png"> <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css"> </head> <body> <script type="text/javascript" src="/commands/com1.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/config/config.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/js/jsterm.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="/js/analytics.js"></script> </body> </html> So $ w3m http://clarkduvall.com $ Just sayin'.

United857 13y ago
For those of you who didn't get it (I had to google what w3m was), his point is that the site context is all rendered by JS, without any fallback static text content. Besides the obvious accessibility issues, it's also not good for SEO.
- lhorie 13y ago
  If you rely on SEO to get work as a software engineer, you're probably doing it wrong. Know your target audience, yadayada. Just sayin' :)
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If you make a website solely to advertise yourself, and not also to make cool stuff you made or found or said accessible to the people who might be looking for it, you may not be doing it wrong, but you are still missing out a bit :) Not that I have any beef with javascript only stuff or this site, the web is big enough for everything - please don't read my comment as complaining in any shape or form, really. I just want to say that successfully targeting an audience is nice, but people finding stuff at your site(s) you couldn't possibly have imagined they'd be looking for is also nice, and if you go the javascript only route, you might never find out. Just as a general point that doesn't really have anything to do with the site at hand.
- nick2021 13y ago
  Correction, a software engineer from the 80's who never progressed with technology website.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Actually it's damn fine for SEO. Google, the only SE that matters, handles Javascript only websites just fine (actually uses a full browser as the google crawler bot). I'd make a bet that Bing does too. And most accessibility software works with Javascript sites too, as they use the full DOM and can even handle events. It needs a little care to show changes to content and such, but they definitely don't need static fallback to read a site. The rest is old wives tales.
codegeek 13y ago
So what ? let's just appreciate a fellow hacker without pointing out the fact that this is JS only, shall we ? I am sure his intention of creating this website is not to "get found on search engines or have awesome SEO or work for people who have disabled JS".
- aryastark 13y ago
  The point is the irony. The website is designed to give the impressing that this mock CLI is used for everything, but it can't be seen using w3m/lynx/links from a real CLI.
  - shittyanalogy 13y ago
    It is a real cli. What it's not is a unix shell.
- srpablo 13y ago
  Someone else already pointed out the irony of glamorizing hacker identity and "living close to the metal," but the contents of that tribute being un-indexable or inaccessible from a CLI. For me, it's more about accessibility for users with screen readers or Braille, or non-English-speaking users who want to translate it. Don't fall into the common trap: you can like/appreciate something and still be critical of (all or parts of) it. I think the site is absolutely gorgeous and creative, but still a little irked that its presentation matters more than making it available to anyone but sighted English-speakers/readers with JavaScript enabled.
- gavinpc 13y ago
  I like the site. I was just responding to it on its own terms. And yes, the irony was irresistible.
benihana 13y ago
Damn, now all six people who insist on reading the internet via curl requests will be shit out of luck.
- jdthomas 13y ago
  I stuck with lynx for the longest time. Somewhere around 2007 the web became COMPLETELY unusable, even on the subset of sites I would visit. Sad times we're living in. :)
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    I am reading HN on text-mode links right now. Switch from lynx to links and thank me later.
  - RK 13y ago
    I just checked put my sites using elinks and fortunately they came out pretty well. One is based on bootstrap and one on skeleton. I just made some links that are icons (github, twitter, etc) visible in elinks by adding img tags with src="" alt="some text" style="display:none". Seems like an OK hack.
theandrewbailey 13y ago
Yup. Thanks to Noscript, I initially got a black page.
npsimons 13y ago
Yeah, comes up as all black, no text for me in FF (FlashBlock, AdBlock+ and NoScript, the default way I browse).
- elohesra 13y ago
  So you've intentionally disabled a large part of your browser through NoScript and now it won't render pages that require the browser to work as intended? Isn't this rather like removing all gears but first from your car and then expecting everyone to accommodate the fact that you can only achieve 10mph? I'm not meaning to have a go at you here, npsimons -- what you choose to do with your browser is your business, and you've not actually complained about the site -- rather I'm seeking to curb the idea that seems to crop up on HN from time to time that browsing without scripts enabled should provide a roughly equivalent experience to browsing with scripts enabled. It's not reasonable to expect developers to cater to a tiny fraction [0] of their audience when that audience wants the developer to essentially give up all client-side interaction other than POSTs. [0] It's around < 2%: http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/many-users-javascript-disabled-14121.html http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/many-users-javascript-d...
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Graceful degradation is important not only for users who don't run JavaScript, but users of screenreaders as well. There's no reason not to have a plain text fallback of your site's content.
    - dangrossman 13y ago
      This is a myth. Screen readers have no problem with ordinary sites built with JavaScript. WebAIM did a survey of screen reader users, and 98.6% have JavaScript enabled when they browse the web. http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#javascript People that use screen readers use ordinary browsers, like IE, Firefox and Chrome. They don't use special browsers, screen readers read the whole screen.

by gavinpc 13y ago

United857 13y ago

For those of you who didn't get it (I had to google what w3m was), his point is that the site context is all rendered by JS, without any fallback static text content. Besides the obvious accessibility issues, it's also not good for SEO.

lhorie 13y ago
If you rely on SEO to get work as a software engineer, you're probably doing it wrong. Know your target audience, yadayada. Just sayin' :)
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  If you make a website solely to advertise yourself, and not also to make cool stuff you made or found or said accessible to the people who might be looking for it, you may not be doing it wrong, but you are still missing out a bit :) Not that I have any beef with javascript only stuff or this site, the web is big enough for everything - please don't read my comment as complaining in any shape or form, really. I just want to say that successfully targeting an audience is nice, but people finding stuff at your site(s) you couldn't possibly have imagined they'd be looking for is also nice, and if you go the javascript only route, you might never find out. Just as a general point that doesn't really have anything to do with the site at hand.
nick2021 13y ago
Correction, a software engineer from the 80's who never progressed with technology website.
coldtea 13y ago
Actually it's damn fine for SEO. Google, the only SE that matters, handles Javascript only websites just fine (actually uses a full browser as the google crawler bot). I'd make a bet that Bing does too. And most accessibility software works with Javascript sites too, as they use the full DOM and can even handle events. It needs a little care to show changes to content and such, but they definitely don't need static fallback to read a site. The rest is old wives tales.

codegeek 13y ago

So what ? let's just appreciate a fellow hacker without pointing out the fact that this is JS only, shall we ? I am sure his intention of creating this website is not to "get found on search engines or have awesome SEO or work for people who have disabled JS".

aryastark 13y ago
The point is the irony. The website is designed to give the impressing that this mock CLI is used for everything, but it can't be seen using w3m/lynx/links from a real CLI.
- shittyanalogy 13y ago
  It is a real cli. What it's not is a unix shell.
srpablo 13y ago
Someone else already pointed out the irony of glamorizing hacker identity and "living close to the metal," but the contents of that tribute being un-indexable or inaccessible from a CLI. For me, it's more about accessibility for users with screen readers or Braille, or non-English-speaking users who want to translate it. Don't fall into the common trap: you can like/appreciate something and still be critical of (all or parts of) it. I think the site is absolutely gorgeous and creative, but still a little irked that its presentation matters more than making it available to anyone but sighted English-speakers/readers with JavaScript enabled.
gavinpc 13y ago
I like the site. I was just responding to it on its own terms. And yes, the irony was irresistible.

benihana 13y ago

Damn, now all six people who insist on reading the internet via curl requests will be shit out of luck.

jdthomas 13y ago
I stuck with lynx for the longest time. Somewhere around 2007 the web became COMPLETELY unusable, even on the subset of sites I would visit. Sad times we're living in. :)
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  I am reading HN on text-mode links right now. Switch from lynx to links and thank me later.
- RK 13y ago
  I just checked put my sites using elinks and fortunately they came out pretty well. One is based on bootstrap and one on skeleton. I just made some links that are icons (github, twitter, etc) visible in elinks by adding img tags with src="" alt="some text" style="display:none". Seems like an OK hack.

theandrewbailey 13y ago

Yup. Thanks to Noscript, I initially got a black page.

npsimons 13y ago

Yeah, comes up as all black, no text for me in FF (FlashBlock, AdBlock+ and NoScript, the default way I browse).

elohesra 13y ago
So you've intentionally disabled a large part of your browser through NoScript and now it won't render pages that require the browser to work as intended? Isn't this rather like removing all gears but first from your car and then expecting everyone to accommodate the fact that you can only achieve 10mph? I'm not meaning to have a go at you here, npsimons -- what you choose to do with your browser is your business, and you've not actually complained about the site -- rather I'm seeking to curb the idea that seems to crop up on HN from time to time that browsing without scripts enabled should provide a roughly equivalent experience to browsing with scripts enabled. It's not reasonable to expect developers to cater to a tiny fraction [0] of their audience when that audience wants the developer to essentially give up all client-side interaction other than POSTs. [0] It's around < 2%: http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/many-users-javascript-disabled-14121.html http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/many-users-javascript-d...
- dublinben 13y ago
  Graceful degradation is important not only for users who don't run JavaScript, but users of screenreaders as well. There's no reason not to have a plain text fallback of your site's content.
  - dangrossman 13y ago
    This is a myth. Screen readers have no problem with ordinary sites built with JavaScript. WebAIM did a survey of screen reader users, and 98.6% have JavaScript enabled when they browse the web. http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#javascript People that use screen readers use ordinary browsers, like IE, Firefox and Chrome. They don't use special browsers, screen readers read the whole screen.