posted by deathshadow on Wed 9th Jan 2008 06:36
Conversations The fonts aren't dynamic so lte IE6 users are stuck at crap size... not bad enough all the fonts are in PX, but they are BELOW 12px, basically making them unusable on modern laptops and any machine running large fonts/120dpi (or 100dpi linux) I have to zoom in 50% to read the articles, then zoom back out because the input boxes ARE dynamic fonts!

Search bar blows out of it's container, WAY too much white space between columns wasting valuable layout space, it's NOT 800 wide friendly (longstanding hallmark of the site) combine this with the absurdly small fonts and on my laptop ALL the themes are next to useless.

Javascripted mouseovers? What is this 1997? 67k of html for 16k of content? 109k of javascripts that don't even seem to do anything USEFUL? 50k for a crappy 120x120 image? No CSS media types? Characters that don't match the encoding? Not trace one of ANYTHING resembling semantic markup? Sorry, but /FAIL/ at intarweb man. This new theme is a train wreck.
Previous ConversationNext Conversation
Comments:
Agreed
by JCooper on Wed 9th Jan 2008 09:32 UTC
JCooper
Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree with pretty much all of your comments. Amusingly, I'd also add (since commenting on this topic) that the "Post Comment" link from the main page doesn't actually let you post a comment, it just shows the comment page, with another "Post a comment" link.

I personally don't believe the new site should be out of Beta. The "lefty" theme also needs some work - so much wasted space it's unreal!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Agreed
by JCooper on Wed 9th Jan 2008 09:33 in reply to "Agreed"
JCooper Member since:
2005-07-06

Sad to be replying to myself but...

...after posting my previous comment, I also note *nothing* lines up so your eyes jump all over the place to follow the content!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Agreed
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 11th Jan 2008 09:59 in reply to "RE: Agreed"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

Yeah. Hate it how posts aren't aligned with the username of whoever posted them.

Reply Score: 2

Also, "older stories" doesn't work
by noamsml on Wed 9th Jan 2008 11:52 UTC
noamsml
Member since:
2005-07-09

It seems that they might have made it send the wrong GET var, because changing "offset" never does anything to the page. i.e. http://osnews.com/?offset=30 is the same as http://osnews.com/?offset=67894 .

Reply Score: 1

...
by Adam S on Wed 9th Jan 2008 12:26 UTC
Adam S
Member since:
2005-04-01

Semantic markup is not a goal for us - it provides us nothing, and therefore, is neither a "bug" nor on the "to-do" list.

There are some bugs, some of which came from the transition to both a new server and a new site, and some legitimate complaints that I will tend to.

I'm not going to respond to whining about unnecessary yaps like "no explicit media type for CSS" (the site auto-redirects handhelds) and fully compliant javascript mouseovers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by deathshadow on Wed 9th Jan 2008 12:51 in reply to "..."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Sorry, but OSNews was always enjoyable because despite it's dated code, it was LEAN.

"Semantic Markup" not a goal - welcome to 1997... as to providing 'nothing', clean minimalist markup provides nothing huh? Non-CSS non-JS degredation provides nothing huh? The mere effect of search engines being able to index articles properly means nothing?

and the javascript. "Fully compliant" means jack when you are feeding a bloated extra file to do... NOTHING that can't be done with less code and better cross-browser support with two or three lines of CSS.

Tables for single columns?!? Obvious headers in the tables as TD's? Unshared 'dual' links? code out of presentation order? Classitus? Inlined presentation?

This is 2008 after all...

If nothing else, the bandwidth increase has GOT to be murder.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by stestagg on Wed 9th Jan 2008 14:58 in reply to "RE: ..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

This is the second trollish rant from you that I've read today. I've got my LART ready for the next time.

Semantic markup is currently a stupid ideal pushed by the zealots on the CSS mailing list. I don't argue with the sentiment of it, but until we actually get a useable language that supports it, it is nothing but a purist's ideal, and, as Adam said, is pointless at the moment. (Don't get me started on Microformats!)

Fixed fonts? Having fixed font sizes is actually A GOOD THING. This may sound counter-intuitive, but a suprisingly large number of IE users have their font size set incorrectly. Becuase 90% of the web uses fixed-font sizes, when they look at your site, they think that it is broken. The current solution for people savvy enough to want to set their own font size is to use firefox, or IE 7 (with its broken 'scale' feature).

You are complaining about Javascript and Bloat? Welcome to the 2000s.(You seem to still be hung up on the 1990s). If you don't like the bloat, I reccomend visiting http://mobile.osnews.com .

SEO problems? That is not your problem.

Tables for single columns? Well, it's not something that I would do, but the <ul> and <ol> implementations are so buggy and variable across browser, that tables is a perfectly valid solution here. Again, Adam seems to be living in the real world, unlike you here.

Classitus? (or even Divitis) Again, the current purist's opinion is that you should rather mis-use existing elements, and re-task them for your own purpose than ever use a <div> or <.. class="">, well this is just plain stupid. See Semantic Markup ^^ for why.

Inlined presentation? There is nothing wrong with inlined presentation. If a particular element should be displayed uniquely, then that information should be attached to THAT node directly, not abstracted to a header, or some other file. This is the beauty of XML based languages, if you want to parse information out of an XML tree, you can choose to read or ignore any element attributes you want. Seperation of content is good as a general principal, but should not be taken to extremes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by MamiyaOtaru on Fri 11th Jan 2008 10:02 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

thanks for pointing out http://mobile.osnews.com . I'll be using that address on my desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by BiPolar on Fri 11th Jan 2008 13:41 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
BiPolar Member since:
2007-07-06

Excellent!
Editing my bookmarks right away!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: ...
by deathshadow on Sat 12th Jan 2008 07:41 in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Semantic markup is currently a stupid ideal pushed by the zealots on the CSS mailing list.

There's a mailing list?

Semantic markup is NOT a stupid ideal - it is a proven method for reducing markup, making better use of browser caching models and simplifying code - remember programming 101 - the less code you use, the less code there is to break.

Fixed fonts? Having fixed font sizes is actually A GOOD THING. This may sound counter-intuitive

Fixed fonts have their place - that place being when you are compositing with a background image or inside a fixed width container where a change in size results in a broken layout.

It does NOT belong on content... at the VERY LEAST one should use PT, so that the 20-30% of windows users running 'large fonts/120dpi' aren't diving for the zoom control every time they land on your page. *NOTE* every forum software EXCEPT phpBB uses pt by default.

Becuase 90% of the web uses fixed-font sizes, when they look at your site, they think that it is broken.

REALLY? Hmm... Google? Nope, not fixed. E-Bay? MSN? Amazon? Slashdot? Sorry, but WRONG. The only sites advocating fixing sizes is Yahoo, and most phpBB skins (which use a retardedly small 8px?!?) and holding those up as a shining example of good web coding falls into the same category as Carlos Mencia's favorite 3 digit hex color.

You are complaining about Javascript and Bloat? Welcome to the 2000s.(You seem to still be hung up on the 1990s).

No, welcome to proper coding... For every jackass that says "Oh, our target audience is all on broadband by now" I point out "You are hosting on a 10mbps connect on a shared server - how many hits do you get again?"

Classitus? (or even Divitis) Again, the current purist's opinion is that you should rather mis-use existing elements, and re-task them for your own purpose than ever use a <div> or <.. class="">

Completely misses the point as I'm not talking about mis-using elements. This plays into the table thing too - You are thinking of the people who use the semantic tags non-semantically - slapping paragraph and headers around EVERYTHING just like they did with tables when tables were all the rage and like they did when DIV's came along.

You have a list, mark it up as a LIST. You have a header, mark it up as a HEADER, you have a paragraph, mark it up as a PARAGRAPH. Pretty simple. That does not mean never use a SPAN, DIV, class or ID, it means use the right tags the right way. There is no reason to ever do |div class="SectionHeader"| (man, I wish this didn't block HTML and/or had code tags), or to waste a DIV around a list just to slap on padding. Likewise if you have five paragraphs in a row, or a bunch of LI in a row - don't waste your time slapping the same class on each and every one when you have a perfectly good wrapping element to which you can apply and inherit.

Inlined presentation? There is nothing wrong with inlined presentation. If a particular element should be displayed uniquely, then that information should be attached to THAT node directly, not abstracted to a header, or some other file.

Separation of presentation from content is one of the best things CSS brings to the table - it simplifies the HTML, makes better use of the caching model, and allows one to reskin the ENTIRE site without changing the HTML at ALL. All those broken issues across skins - how many of those could be resolved if all the pages used the SAME HTML, and only differed in the styling applied by the CSS? Oh _____ doesn't work in ______ skin? That problem can be completely avoided just by using the same HTML and doing all presentation via CSS (and/or some behavior/graceful degredation via .js)... something that semantic markup, proper use of tags, and a little standard layout prep can EASILY implement.

There is a reason FONT and CENTER are deprecated, along the full gamut of presentational attributes: align, background, bgcolor, clear, color, border, hspace, noshade, nowrap, size, width, vspace - ALL GONE from the 'strict' doctypes. Presentation is what CSS is FOR... Accusing me of being stuck in the 90's then you say THAT? RIGHT, I'll buy that for a dollar.

Your entire response reminds me of:
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200704/lame_excuses_for_not_b...

Sorry, but #DDD

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: ...
by stestagg on Sat 12th Jan 2008 12:06 in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

is a proven method for reducing markup, making better use of browser caching models and simplifying code

We mean different things, I see. What you are talking about is good coding practice. What I mean when I see the term 'Semantic Markup' is the practice of trying to add [semantic web-esque] semantic value to pieces of data by abusing the [cite], [link], [a] and [abbr] tags horribly. As for cacheing, I think you don't know what you are talking about. Web browsers typically requests an entire page from the server if the cache is invalid. Therefore cacheing works on the resource level, and not the element level. Even template engines like smarty do their cacheing on a divisional basis, not a tag-name basis.

remember programming 101 - the less code you use, the less code there is to break.

Wrong, pick up an F before you leave. I can write programs in FASM that are smaller than their C, certainly smaller than their C++ counterparts, however the idea that they have less bugs is laughable. Simpler programs maybe? but not just smaller programs.

REALLY? Hmm... Google? Nope, not fixed. E-Bay? MSN? Amazon? Slashdot? Sorry,

By Fixed sizing, I am including PT sizing (which, for a designer is the worst of every world). Your online portfolio shows that you have very little idea of exactly how complex it is to implmement a good, flexible design that works at at different font sizes, and fits the constraints of the brief. Google, Ebay, MSN, Amazon, and slashdot all can afford to pay their programmers to get it right. Framework designers should get it right because they are marketing code rather than content. For other people, it is better to have a site that always works, than one that breaks horribly when someome has made a mistake with their settings.


No, welcome to proper coding

The current teaching amongst the development community is NOT to optimise early. The correct model is develop, THEN profile, THEN optimise only the bottle-necks. This means that if OSNews are happy they are getting no Bandwidth throttling, they should leave things as they are. Bandwidth is cheap, developers are not.

You have a list, mark it up as a LIST.

Ideally, yes. But once you have coded a site that is compatible with, say IE6, you see that the UL implementations are horribly broken, in different ways. The only way to make a site work properly with lists in all major browsers is to include pages of HTML/CSS hacks. This is a far worse solution than using different tags.

SectionHeader

If you are talking about Semantic Markup, then SectionHeader has far more Semantic Value than H1. Untill we have a markup language that truly supports semantics, everyone can safely ignore them.

There is a reason FONT and CENTER are deprecated

Yes, but inline style attributes ARE NOT depreciated. And for some unique elements, are the best method for displaying them.


I actually agree with much of what you believe in. My sites tend to conform to all the ideals that you are pushing, where possible anyway.

But the motivation for my responses to your rants was a basic disghust at your arrogance.
Don't ever be so rude as to come on and publically insult [another] professional's work in this manner. If you want to complain,
1) be polite.
2) If at all possible, do it privately.
3) Have some examples of your own perfect work to display first, the only samples that you display are horrid piles of accessibility crap with nothing to suggest you aren't a 14 year old schoolboy who managed to find frontpage and the internet one afternoon.

[/rant]

Reply Score: 2

Can't see number of replies :/
by WereCatf on Wed 9th Jan 2008 13:01 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Before it showed the number of replies to any post and allowed you to click on it to show all of those replies, but now there is no indication whatsoever if someone has replied to a comment :O That sucks. Big time. Apparently even switching to the classic theme has no effect there... Besides, the new V4 theme is not even nearly as readable as the classic theme.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Hmm, the number of replies bit is interesting, that's definitely something that could/should be there. I'll have to check with Adam if it's an easy thing to add, and I must say, it's be handy for navigational purposes too.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I used to check all the replies to any interesting comments as it was so darn handy. I just feel there is now something really essential missing without that..

Reply Score: 2

RE: Can't see number of replies :/
by mezz on Wed 9th Jan 2008 17:37 in reply to "Can't see number of replies :/"
mezz Member since:
2005-06-29

Besides, the new V4 theme is not even nearly as readable as the classic theme.

I agree. I would like to have classic theme with menu stuff in the right side or even better no menu if it possibles?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by stestagg
by stestagg on Wed 9th Jan 2008 15:27 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

Some bugs that I have noticed:

Clicking on the (reccoment this story) icon in v4 brings up a message that I 'must be logged-in to comment on stories' even when I am logged in.

This probably isn't your fault, but in IE7 in Vista, if you maximise/restore an IE window when viewing the front page, all the story icons get mis-placed, It seems that the icons are a fixed-distance from the left of the window, while the main content is centered. This is only a minor bug ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by stestagg
by Almafeta on Wed 9th Jan 2008 20:59 in reply to "Comment by stestagg"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I just noticed that too.

I giggle whenever a supposedly professional site is caught using fixed sizes and positions for a file format that regularly is viewed on devices of all sorts of sizes, resolutions, and aspect ratios. If you want fixed sizes and positions, publish as a PDF...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by stestagg
by mikesum32 on Thu 10th Jan 2008 00:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by stestagg"
mikesum32 Member since:
2005-10-22

Not to mention that butt-ugly logo, and the "OMG I Already Told You NOT JUST Operating System NewZ D00d!11!" tag line.

So that eye is watching us then ?

I complained about those months ago, they just aren't eye appealing and don't set a serious tone.

Yes, I'm tired of those people that always complain that the site is just for operating system news or just for open source news, but those people are trolls.

Reply Score: 1