Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545970
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[16]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 14:05 UTC in reply to "RE[15]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I don't see everything in black and white

Well clearly you do because every point you've made has been definitive: "you absolutely should do this / should never do that!" blah blah blah.

All because you want to try and convince me that you know what you're talking about. Yet the ironic thing is, using such absolutes only makes you seem inflexible and inexperienced (which I'm sure you're not, but you're not helping your case).

however I think that a site should be built around content first

"however"? I was never implying that content shouldn't come first.

Writing targeted code is why we are in the current predicament of non-webkit browsers being forced to honour -webkit.

Actually no. The reason why is because some developers are inflexible and only target webkit.

The whole bloody point of targeted code is that you're writing code to support other browsers outside of webkit.

If you're writing targeted code and still only supporting webkit then you're a complete fail of web developer.

I think that is acceptable when it comes to images and very little else.

Depends on the layout of the site. Some layouts don't scale well for smaller screens so it makes much more sense to have a mobile style sheet. (yeah I know about how sites should dynamically scale well, and in an ideal world all designs would do so. But in the real world it isn't always practical).

Also some sites are too content rich for mobile connections (eg 3G), so it makes sense to cut down on some of the content (and I don't mean remove important content, I mean remove the unimportant content such as have comments on a separate page to the article. I know OSNews does this on their desktop site, but most blogs do not).

Also some sites might have custom fonts or Javascript to handle mouseover events, both of which just adds yet more bloat for users browsing via 3G.

Maybe you don't share this view. Maybe you're one of the numpties who things dozens of separate javascript and CSS includes makes sense. But I prefer to write optimised yet highly manageable code that works well on all platforms. Which means occasionally resorting to targeted code.

Yes you should use the best tools for the job, but work around for limitations in the browser IMHO should only be used if you HAVE TO

I'd rather people worked around the limitations of browsers than limit their site because of one or two crappy browsers.


and it should be well documented why you did it.

Well yeah. Everything should be documented (or at least a few well placed comments), hacks and "normal" code. But that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited 2012-12-20 14:14 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[17]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Thu 20th Dec 2012 18:54 in reply to "RE[16]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Well clearly you do because every point you've made has been definitive: "you absolutely should do this / should never do that!" blah blah blah.


No, it is simply that I like to do things properly, if I have to be pragmatic about it I will be.

All because you want to try and convince me that you know what you're talking about. Yet the ironic thing is, using such absolutes only makes you seem inflexible and inexperienced (which I'm sure you're not, but you're not helping your case).


You are not that precious to me.

Actually no. The reason why is because some developers are inflexible and only target webkit.

The whole bloody point of targeted code is that you're writing code to support other browsers outside of webkit.

If you're writing targeted code and still only supporting webkit then you're a complete fail of web developer.


Sorry I don't target a browser, I target features of a browser. Writing standards compliant code wins you half the battle.

I have seen so many people complain about IE7 not rendering a page correctly. After putting it through a validator and making them fix it rendered correctly.

I got the look of "Oh it renders correctly now".

Depends on the layout of the site. Some layouts don't scale well for smaller screens so it makes much more sense to have a mobile style sheet. (yeah I know about how sites should dynamically scale well, and in an ideal world all designs would do so. But in the real world it isn't always practical).

Also some sites are too content rich for mobile connections (eg 3G), so it makes sense to cut down on some of the content (and I don't mean remove important content, I mean remove the unimportant content such as have comments on a separate page to the article. I know OSNews does this on their desktop site, but most blogs do not).

Also some sites might have custom fonts or Javascript to handle mouseover events, both of which just adds yet more bloat for users browsing via 3G.


Maybe you don't share this view. Maybe you're one of the numpties who things dozens of separate javascript and CSS includes makes sense. But I prefer to write optimised yet highly manageable code that works well on all platforms. Which means occasionally [/q]

It totally depends what tools you are using and what you are trying to achieve. We have a separate mobile site because our slot games are flash which doesn't work on some smart phones. That is a show stopper.

If you load scripts in an intelligent way it doesn't bloat there are numerous techniques. Some are server side (WURFL etc) and others are Client side (Modernizer, YepNodeJS and Media Queries etc).

I still think that server side browser detection should be kept to a minimum.

Serving different markup to different browsers should be avoided.
I'd rather people worked around the limitations of browsers than limit their site because of one or two crappy browsers.


I believe in progressive enhancement.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[18]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:01 in reply to "RE[17]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You are not that precious to me.

Well that's a pity because the only other excuse you have for making dumb statements is rather less pleasant ;)

Sorry I don't target a browser, I target features of a browser. Writing standards compliant code wins you half the battle.

Well now you're basically saying what I just said but reworded into your own garbled logic.


I have seen so many people complain about IE7 not rendering a page correctly. After putting it through a validator and making them fix it rendered correctly.

Cool story bro. Not everyone is as dumb as your work colleagues.

It totally depends what tools you are using and what you are trying to achieve.

That's what I f--king said from the start.


We have a separate mobile site because our slot games are flash which doesn't work on some smart phones. That is a show stopper.

Thank you for proving my point.

If you load scripts in an intelligent way it doesn't bloat there are numerous techniques. Some are server side (WURFL etc) and others are Client side (Modernizer, YepNodeJS and Media Queries etc).

Yes, I know how to build web sites. We've already established that.


I still think that server side browser detection should be kept to a minimum.

I agree. What I didn't agree with was your sweeping generalisation that it should never happen. Thanks for finally agreeing with me.

I believe in progressive enhancement.

Ideologies are great, but try to explain that to a client who is paying your company a few hundred thousand to be their bitch.

I'm somewhat getting the impressing that you're business is rather small scale from the elitism and generalisations you love to make. If that's not the case, then you really do come off incredibly badly here.

Edited 2012-12-21 00:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2