| 00:18.26 | macnewbold | xilch: are you worried about it because you _are_ part of the company he keeps? ;) |
| 00:22.18 | *** join/#uphpu scott_ (scott@crackaddict.com) |
| 00:23.10 | *** join/#uphpu drewbono (~andrew@c-24-2-90-131.client.comcast.net) |
| 01:09.57 | *** join/#uphpu jakea (~jakea@128.187.234.40) |
| 01:17.03 | *** join/#uphpu eco|w (~eco@dsl093-225-126.slc1.dsl.speakeasy.net) |
| 02:42.01 | *** join/#uphpu asynic (~synic@67-40-111-88.slkc.qwest.net) |
| 02:58.43 | *** join/#uphpu jsmith (~jsmith@smithfam.dsl.xmission.com) |
| 03:39.09 | eco|w | How much does UVNet colo cost. Their website is...well...useless without prices. |
| 03:39.12 | eco|w | ? |
| 03:43.17 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 03:43.20 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 04:03.24 | *** join/#uphpu tierra|h (tierra@c-24-10-198-60.client.comcast.net) |
| 04:45.49 | *** join/#uphpu mindjuju (mindjuju@207.173.210.167) |
| 04:47.00 | *** join/#uphpu mindjuju (mindjuju@207.173.210.167) |
| 04:52.11 | *** join/#uphpu mindjuju (mindjuju@207.173.210.167) |
| 05:05.52 | *** join/#uphpu spiderbiter (~spiderbit@38.119.177.194) |
| 05:50.03 | *** join/#uphpu drewbono (~andrew@c-24-2-90-131.client.comcast.net) |
| 07:42.34 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 07:42.44 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 08:36.37 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 08:36.46 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 08:48.32 | *** join/#uphpu tierra|h (tierra@c-24-10-198-60.client.comcast.net) |
| 09:30.38 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 09:30.48 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 10:24.44 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 10:24.54 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 11:18.45 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 11:18.55 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 12:12.46 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 12:12.56 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 13:06.50 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 13:07.00 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 14:00.52 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 14:01.02 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 14:14.03 | *** join/#uphpu asynic (~synic@67-40-111-88.slkc.qwest.net) |
| 14:19.41 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@208.186.134.102) |
| 14:19.51 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 15:01.24 | *** join/#uphpu wps (~wps@71.32.230.91) |
| 15:01.27 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o wps] by ChanServ |
| 15:06.48 | *** join/#uphpu alphahawk (~alphahawk@70.56.105.158) |
| 15:07.12 | *** join/#uphpu tbye (~tbye@69.27.4.131) |
| 15:08.21 | tbye | Morning folks! |
| 15:16.42 | *** join/#uphpu drewbono (~andrew@c-24-2-90-131.client.comcast.net) |
| 15:20.11 | alphahawk | morning tbye |
| 15:20.26 | alphahawk | anyone here do much with dhcp server in linux? |
| 15:20.57 | tbye | Been too long for me... the dlink handles everything local these days. |
| 15:21.15 | alphahawk | cool |
| 15:29.39 | *** join/#uphpu alpahawk (~alphahawk@70.56.105.158) |
| 15:35.34 | *** join/#uphpu alphahawk (~alphahawk@70.56.105.158) |
| 16:20.52 | *** join/#uphpu optikal (~optikal@67-40-118-81.slkc.uswest.net) |
| 16:59.53 | *** join/#uphpu jsmith (~jsmith@pip.drs1.omniture.com) |
| 17:42.41 | *** join/#uphpu jbot (ibot@apt.bot.TimRiker.active.supporter.pdpc) |
| 17:42.41 | *** topic/#uphpu is Utah PHP Users Group | uphpu.org |
| 18:02.12 | *** join/#uphpu drip (~scoobmast@216.250.76.190) |
| 18:07.24 | *** join/#uphpu fungus (~fungus@firebat.aros.net) |
| 18:10.52 | *** join/#uphpu bigdog_ut (~bigdog_ut@166.70.34.182) |
| 18:10.52 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o bigdog_ut] by ChanServ |
| 18:13.59 | *** join/#uphpu zardinuk (~jeff@vulcan.americom.com) |
| 19:09.22 | *** join/#uphpu jakea (~jakea@byu147137wks.byu.edu) |
| 19:59.30 | bigdog_ut | wow it is so quite |
| 19:59.34 | bigdog_ut | quiet |
| 20:01.12 | zardinuk | half the guys in here I've never heard a peep from |
| 20:01.17 | zardinuk | do they ever talk? |
| 20:06.18 | zardinuk | these 8oz cans of pepsi feel like a drop of water on the back of my throat these days, when're they gonna come out with 64oz cans of pepsi? |
| 20:06.18 | bigdog_ut | no not really...like spiderbiter just sits and sleeps at his computer |
| 20:07.04 | bigdog_ut | ~melvin spiderbiter |
| 20:07.06 | jbot | ACTION pulls spiderbiter underwear up to the ceiling...and smiles |
| 20:08.04 | macnewbold | maybe we can wake them all up if we talk to them... |
| 20:08.07 | zardinuk | I need to get hit by a car or something so I can take some paid leave |
| 20:10.04 | zardinuk | lets hack em. Anybody know how to hack people? heh |
| 20:10.23 | zardinuk | hack em all! |
| 20:11.25 | zardinuk | you guys all program in PHP? |
| 20:11.30 | zardinuk | as a primary language |
| 20:11.48 | wps | yes |
| 20:13.01 | zardinuk | I'm converting a lot of my perl and php code to ruby |
| 20:13.09 | zardinuk | whats B? |
| 20:13.15 | synic | horray, another ruby lover! |
| 20:13.36 | zardinuk | synic: did you post about rails to the uphpu list? |
| 20:13.43 | synic | zardinuk: I was kidding. B was C's predacessor |
| 20:14.00 | synic | er.. predecessor |
| 20:14.04 | synic | zardinuk: no, I didn't. |
| 20:14.23 | zardinuk | someone on the list responded to my rails praise |
| 20:14.32 | zardinuk | so that makes 3 of us |
| 20:15.07 | synic | nice |
| 20:15.43 | synic | ruby has the nicest syntax of any language I've ever used. it's just so pretty |
| 20:15.48 | zardinuk | I went from perl to PHP and I missed a lot of stuff about perl, so when I found ruby i was happy again |
| 20:16.02 | zardinuk | like the debugger |
| 20:16.09 | synic | you mean irb? |
| 20:16.12 | zardinuk | yeah |
| 20:16.23 | bigdog_ut | and mod_ruby is killer |
| 20:16.23 | synic | wait, perl has something like that? |
| 20:16.29 | zardinuk | I can run irb from GUD mode emacs |
| 20:16.31 | zardinuk | perldb |
| 20:16.35 | zardinuk | perl -d |
| 20:16.35 | synic | brb |
| 20:16.59 | zardinuk | do perl -d and ctrl+d to drop into the debugger shell |
| 20:17.35 | zardinuk | I used to use mod_perl but I use fastcgi with ruby |
| 20:18.02 | bigdog_ut | mod_ruby is really fast, i like it alot |
| 20:18.05 | zardinuk | I made an app that used shared memory for a bunch of hash lookups and it was just a big headache after a while, I'll just keep it simple from now on |
| 20:18.11 | bigdog_ut | compiled in is great as a static mod |
| 20:19.50 | zardinuk | they're talking about adding apache handlers to the next incarnation of PHP, but they're like 10 years late I think |
| 20:27.42 | dataw0lf | sup guys. |
| 20:34.31 | zardinuk | just making the most badass website ever |
| 20:34.39 | *** join/#uphpu optikal (~optikal@67-40-118-81.slkc.uswest.net) |
| 20:36.43 | synic | ... now you have to elaborate. |
| 20:37.06 | zardinuk | oh do I? |
| 20:37.26 | synic | yup. |
| 20:37.56 | zardinuk | its just an e-commerce website, but what makes it so cool is I bought all the graphics from professionals |
| 20:38.07 | dataw0lf | http://www.dilvie.com/music/2005/iwos/ check out these mixes |
| 20:38.08 | zardinuk | I don't feel frustrated with my artistic abilities anymore |
| 20:38.19 | dataw0lf | Dilvie is pretty damn good, and I'm not a huge techno fan. |
| 20:38.36 | dataw0lf | those are going to be featured at Vortex Saturday night. |
| 20:42.38 | fungus | I hate techno, especially techno remixes of good songs. |
| 20:43.13 | zardinuk | techno all sounds the same after a while |
| 20:43.38 | zardinuk | have you seen that homestar runner episode with the techno music? |
| 20:44.09 | zardinuk | "then you add the obligatory movie quote" |
| 20:44.29 | optikal | hmm |
| 20:44.41 | optikal | some people. =P |
| 20:47.24 | optikal | but i agree.. techno does suck.. its all about trance. |
| 20:49.33 | zardinuk | I used to be into the drum and bass, but now it just gives me a headache, trance just makes me yawn |
| 20:50.29 | optikal | I cannot stand most DnB. Trance to me is extremely energetic and upbeat, depending on the subgenre of trance. |
| 20:50.31 | dataw0lf | I don't listen to any of it, but dilvie rocks. |
| 20:50.52 | zardinuk | I listen to 97.9 lately, heh, I'll get sick of it eventually though |
| 20:51.00 | zardinuk | smooooooooooth jazz |
| 20:51.42 | optikal | dataw0lf: no dilvie on the netjuke.. link me? |
| 20:52.04 | dataw0lf | http://www.dilvie.com/music/2005/iwos/ |
| 20:52.11 | dataw0lf | Dilvie is a local guy who does club stuff around SLC |
| 20:52.46 | optikal | groovey, dling. |
| 21:11.56 | *** join/#uphpu macnewbold (~mac@69.2.248.251) |
| 21:12.06 | *** mode/#uphpu [+o macnewbold] by ChanServ |
| 21:13.57 | *** join/#uphpu tierra|w (~tierra@dsl093-225-126.slc1.dsl.speakeasy.net) |
| 21:17.57 | macnewbold | wow, 20 people... wps will be proud when he notices :) |
| 21:18.26 | wps | we should sing a song |
| 21:18.35 | macnewbold | (20 people, -2 bots, -2 alternate personalities = 16 people :) ) |
| 21:18.38 | macnewbold | ~sing |
| 21:18.39 | jbot | "Night fever, night fever. You know how to do it!" |
| 21:18.40 | macnewbold | ~sing a song |
| 21:18.43 | macnewbold | ~sing it happy |
| 21:18.44 | macnewbold | ~sing it strong |
| 21:18.54 | macnewbold | ~sing of happy, not sad |
| 21:19.01 | macnewbold | ~and so forth |
| 21:19.03 | wps | jbot, how many songs do you know? |
| 21:19.15 | macnewbold | YOU are, Mr. Sexy Pants! |
| 21:24.34 | macnewbold | so... |
| 21:24.40 | macnewbold | did anyone see my rant on the list yet? |
| 21:24.44 | macnewbold | latest rant, that is |
| 21:25.31 | dataw0lf | Javascript rant? |
| 21:25.41 | macnewbold | was there another? |
| 21:25.43 | macnewbold | ;) |
| 21:26.06 | macnewbold | it looks like at least someone agreed with me... anyone in here have feelings on the subject? |
| 21:26.12 | dataw0lf | Yeah. |
| 21:26.16 | dataw0lf | Javascript sucks. |
| 21:26.16 | jsmith | macnewbold: Synopsis of your email? |
| 21:26.17 | macnewbold | ~lart jsmith for not subscribing to the mailing list yet |
| 21:26.22 | dataw0lf | but it can be helpful in some purposes. |
| 21:26.34 | jsmith | macnewbold: Javascript is a necessary evil. |
| 21:26.35 | macnewbold | jsmith: I'll forward you one... /msg me the addr I should send to |
| 21:26.50 | dataw0lf | well, I don't think Javascript should ever be 'necessary' |
| 21:27.03 | dataw0lf | If it enhances a site, fine. But the site shouldn't be dependent on it. |
| 21:27.05 | fungus | Javascript is for special features, not required functionality. |
| 21:27.24 | jsmith | Right -- but there are some things that are just a *ton* easier with Javascript. |
| 21:27.32 | macnewbold | name three, jsmith |
| 21:28.16 | jsmith | macnewbold: Having a "foldable" menu system automatically open to the correct "fold" for certain pages. |
| 21:28.43 | jsmith | macnewbold: XML-HTTP comes to mind... |
| 21:29.18 | macnewbold | yeah, xml-http is pretty cool |
| 21:29.21 | optikal | Ajax. yummy |
| 21:29.26 | jsmith | macnewbold: And my personal favorite, getting some client-side information and including it in a special image request |
| 21:29.48 | macnewbold | jsmith: the menu thing I do quite easily server side |
| 21:30.09 | macnewbold | yes, there are some things that can _only_ be easily done client side |
| 21:30.11 | jsmith | macnewbold: Yes, but with a little CSS and one small javascript function, I don't have to worry about it on the server |
| 21:30.14 | fungus | jsmith, that is a cool feature, but your site should degrade gracefully if JS is off. |
| 21:30.22 | jsmith | fungus: I 100% agree. |
| 21:30.39 | macnewbold | just because it's a "necessary evil" doesn't mean it has to be abused ;) |
| 21:30.49 | jsmith | I guess I see Javascript as a tool -- is it my favorite tool, no. Is it useful in certain cases? Sure! |
| 21:30.55 | dataw0lf | which brings me to a question, is there a reliable way to check if the client has Javascript enabled or not in PHP? |
| 21:31.05 | macnewbold | fungus: that's one of my top 3 complaints about the way people use javascript |
| 21:31.13 | macnewbold | dataw0lf: not really |
| 21:31.22 | macnewbold | javascript settings aren't sent to the server with the http request |
| 21:31.26 | fungus | I just worked on a shopping cart just now, that allowed any "number" to be used in a CC field. Checked by JS only. |
| 21:31.31 | jsmith | dataw0lf: There are ways to do it, but no elegant ways... |
| 21:31.38 | dataw0lf | yeah, that's what I thought. |
| 21:31.45 | macnewbold | though you could do some empiracal testing, and put something in your page that would hit the server if it was run |
| 21:31.45 | jsmith | fungus: Yuck! Only relying on client-side validation? |
| 21:31.47 | fungus | Even worse, the order was simply emailed to sales in plaintext. |
| 21:31.57 | jsmith | fungus: Ugly. |
| 21:31.59 | macnewbold | ewww |
| 21:32.01 | macnewbold | that's just sick and wrong |
| 21:32.05 | macnewbold | not to mention insecure |
| 21:32.09 | jsmith | fungus: That's so 1995. |
| 21:32.21 | dataw0lf | like animated gifs. |
| 21:32.33 | dataw0lf | and construction signs. |
| 21:32.38 | jsmith | Amen. |
| 21:32.40 | macnewbold | another nightmare story of mine: a shopping cart system done entirely in javascript and frames |
| 21:32.52 | macnewbold | reload the page, and your cart's empty again |
| 21:32.52 | dataw0lf | eh, I can't stand frames. |
| 21:33.04 | macnewbold | and you lost all the stuff you'd entered for checking out |
| 21:33.44 | fungus | I hate frames too. When I read this article I was completely horrified. |
| 21:33.45 | fungus | http://www.webpronews.com/webdevelopment/basicdevelopment/wpn-37-20050222SimpleSolutionforPHPIncludes.html |
| 21:34.15 | jsmith | Death to frames! Death to bad Javascript! Death to stale doughnuts! |
| 21:34.35 | dataw0lf | FREEEEDOOOOM! |
| 21:34.49 | dataw0lf | ie, You will never take ... |
| 21:35.29 | zardinuk | I ranted back at you mac |
| 21:36.01 | zardinuk | you guys are all like "i hate frames, I hate javascript, I hate too many images" |
| 21:36.07 | zardinuk | listen to yourselves! |
| 21:36.40 | optikal | zardinuk: welcome to the world of professional web design |
| 21:37.13 | zardinuk | easiest way to check if javascript is available is to do a javascript redirect and a meta refresh on the same page |
| 21:37.22 | zardinuk | I notice a lot of sites do that, it probably upsets mac |
| 21:38.25 | optikal | or just dont rely on javascript. |
| 21:38.28 | macnewbold | fungus: thanks for the link... the first sentence should raise a red flag: |
| 21:38.34 | zardinuk | firefox will let you "back" out of a redirect which is nice, I hate how IE locks you into one page, you gotta use the "go" menu to get back |
| 21:38.37 | macnewbold | "I have recently created my first Php program. I wanted to share with others some of the problems that I encountered, and how I finally overcame these obstacles." |
| 21:39.13 | fungus | Yeah, I was quite scared. Are includes that complicated?? |
| 21:39.20 | optikal | hehe |
| 21:39.23 | macnewbold | zardinuk: I don't mind if people detect javascript... I'd probably just make a javscript that hit a particular URL on my site as an image src or something |
| 21:39.31 | macnewbold | but that's just me |
| 21:39.55 | macnewbold | I'd rather have people _detect_ javascript and compensate than _assume_ it and be b0rk3d |
| 21:40.41 | macnewbold | oh, and dataw0lf/zardinuk: One other thing you can do is see if the browser they claimed to be using has javascript support |
| 21:40.49 | macnewbold | see php.net/get_browser |
| 21:41.10 | macnewbold | and browser.ini |
| 21:41.10 | zardinuk | macnewbold: The only reason I wouldn't use javascript is I dont have the resources, I can save alot of time by doing server side validation |
| 21:41.10 | macnewbold | the catch is this: Even if their browser can support it, doesn't mean they have it enabled |
| 21:41.20 | zardinuk | 10%-20% of users not having javascript is waaaaay inflated |
| 21:41.28 | macnewbold | but if their browser doesn't support it, you can be really sure they're don't have javascript enabled |
| 21:41.30 | zardinuk | I've done tests myself and it was something like 2% |
| 21:41.35 | zardinuk | and a lot of those were spiders |
| 21:41.45 | macnewbold | 2% of users hitting what site? |
| 21:42.18 | zardinuk | browsers not supporting it was a weak argument 5 years ago |
| 21:42.18 | macnewbold | things like that can vary _hugely_ depending on your market |
| 21:42.18 | zardinuk | a collection of sites |
| 21:42.18 | zardinuk | ecommerce sites |
| 21:42.24 | zardinuk | you dont think even 10% is overblown? |
| 21:42.31 | macnewbold | I'd say that most ecommerce shoppers end up enabling it because without it, too many sites are broken :) |
| 21:42.42 | macnewbold | I was surprised when I heard it, |
| 21:42.47 | optikal | zardinuk: 2% to my site, is about 6000+ people a month. |
| 21:42.51 | zardinuk | exactly, if you dont have javascript you can't use yahoo, yahoo has been mandatory cookies/javascript for years |
| 21:42.53 | optikal | zardinuk: thats the possibility of a lot of money |
| 21:43.16 | macnewbold | but if you consider that at least 25% of users are now on non-MSIE browsers, |
| 21:43.33 | macnewbold | most of which have pop-up blocking and other selective or non-selective javascript disabling, |
| 21:43.38 | zardinuk | mac its at most 2% without javascript, these are people who think they can do anything useful in lynx, and web crawlers |
| 21:43.42 | optikal | I dono where you get that number, but my site is 90.1% on IE, or 9.9% on non-MSIE |
| 21:43.42 | macnewbold | 10% sounds quite reasonable to me |
| 21:43.59 | zardinuk | yeah I'm getting at least 90% IE still |
| 21:44.12 | fungus | Take the example of Google Suggest. Very neat feature if JS is on, but it still works if JS is off. |
| 21:44.13 | zardinuk | I ran these statistics for this very reason |
| 21:44.16 | optikal | Another site of mine, is 85.4%IE and 12.9%FireFox |
| 21:44.24 | zardinuk | to see if I should be using 1. cookies, 2. javascript 3. css |
| 21:44.45 | macnewbold | if you have a lot of mac users (i.e. graphic designers) the number of non-MSIE goes up a lot |
| 21:44.46 | optikal | JavaScript should be used for enhancment, not relying upon. |
| 21:44.54 | zardinuk | browser preference is more dependant on market, probably 50% of slashdot regulars use firefox |
| 21:44.55 | optikal | macnewbold: that is quite true. |
| 21:44.57 | macnewbold | since IE on the mac is dead and a totally different beast anyway |
| 21:45.06 | optikal | zardinuk: yeah, im quite aware of that. |
| 21:45.32 | zardinuk | but javascript is completely reliable. If someone visits your site and they dont have javascript, they'll probably open up their REAL browser and finish their order or whatever |
| 21:45.43 | macnewbold | hehe |
| 21:45.43 | optikal | zardinuk: Uhm.. yah right. |
| 21:45.44 | macnewbold | yeah |
| 21:46.23 | optikal | zardinuk: the sites I run, they will be like "huh.. this is broke, oh no.. i broke my computer!" and then close out their browser. Most large e-commerce sites arent aimed to the technically knowledged crowd. |
| 21:46.23 | macnewbold | another factor is when you get big companies/govt. entities/etc. that have draconian security policies |
| 21:46.29 | macnewbold | and disable all sorts of things |
| 21:46.57 | macnewbold | optikal: the technically knowledged crowd is a "niche market"... it's way too small to be anything else |
| 21:47.19 | macnewbold | most users are either too lazy, too impatient, or too ignorant to read and follow instructions |
| 21:47.47 | optikal | call it what you wish, it will result in loss of sales.. and thats money in the pocket, so ill make obvious decisions. =) |
| 21:48.41 | zardinuk | optikal: I trust that I have no lost 1 sale for the javascript validation I do. I wouldn't do anything that would actually inhibit functionality either. Actually, some pagse use onclick popups which typically aren't blocked |
| 21:48.57 | zardinuk | but I have to assume 1% of the freaks out there wont be able to view the page |
| 21:49.36 | zardinuk | if you're gonna say javascript is going to lose orders, then you have to throw out CSS along with it, and cookies |
| 21:49.56 | optikal | well sure. Thats been my point the entire time.. use javascript to enhance, not to rely upon ( was just making a statement, not a correction) |
| 21:49.57 | macnewbold | zardinuk: just got your javascript validation reply... another one coming your way :) |
| 21:50.07 | zardinuk | k |
| 21:50.32 | optikal | hmm |
| 21:51.57 | zardinuk | if you put background images in css div tags people wont see them. No alternate text. |
| 21:52.16 | optikal | yeah, i do realize that. |
| 21:52.24 | optikal | You use that as an advantage, not a disadvantage. |
| 21:52.44 | optikal | feel free to reference a very, very young site: http://optikal.org/ |
| 21:52.53 | optikal | and use your webdev toolbar (which I hope you use) to disable the styles |
| 21:53.32 | zardinuk | no where do I get that? is that a firefox extension? |
| 21:53.39 | optikal | yeah |
| 21:53.45 | optikal | the best firefox extension ever. =) |
| 21:53.50 | fungus | Use CSS background images to replace text. That way if they have CSS off, they can still see the text. |
| 21:53.57 | zardinuk | i know what you're talking about optikal, the page aught to come up as structured text |
| 21:54.03 | optikal | yeah |
| 21:54.38 | zardinuk | fungus: you mean use a div overlay on top of text? |
| 21:54.40 | fungus | optikal, nice site. |
| 21:54.42 | optikal | or css background images for the actual site layout, that way if css is off, your layout isnt jacked either. |
| 21:54.59 | optikal | fungus: thanks, i did it like 3mos ago i think.. maybe 4. no motivation to continue lol |
| 21:55.03 | fungus | I mean like optikal's site. |
| 21:55.22 | fungus | the site is still usable with css on or off. |
| 21:55.33 | zardinuk | Sure you could make a site thats usable with it on or off |
| 21:56.14 | zardinuk | but theres a lot more stuff, like if I want to use alpha transparency, I can get away with it using the IE filter trick and transparent png's |
| 21:56.44 | zardinuk | both are relatively new features, but that covers 98% of all users |
| 21:57.06 | fungus | http://www.alistapart.com/articles/wiwa/ |
| 21:57.56 | fungus | an any other article on alistapart should be your bible for using CSS/JS |
| 21:58.38 | optikal | zardinuk: except you cannot use transparent pngs in ie |
| 21:59.22 | optikal | well, you can.. but they arent transparent |
| 21:59.30 | zardinuk | well, either set out for accessibility or functionality and visual design.. good luck accomplishing both |
| 21:59.56 | optikal | exactly |
| 22:00.10 | optikal | hence optikal.org, if you visit it in IE, forwards you Mozilla.org =P |
| 22:00.10 | fungus | It is possible. ALA talks about these points frequently. You can do both, *most* of the time. |
| 22:00.11 | zardinuk | optikal: internet explorer has a transparency filter you can apply to certain elements, it doesn't make anti-aliased text any easier but you can have translucent background images and stuff with it |
| 22:00.40 | optikal | fungus: yeah, but not as fluently as it should be.. web design is so sickening right now its crazy.. its a circus lol |
| 22:01.26 | zardinuk | optikal: that is just as bad as these sights that tell me "your browser is not supported, please use IE 6.0" |
| 22:01.30 | zardinuk | *sites |
| 22:01.52 | optikal | zardinuk: actually, its not.. its my way of writing my own personal site, and telling people that I dont want IE on my site because I hate the thing |
| 22:01.53 | zardinuk | most of the time I just leave the site at that point |
| 22:02.16 | zardinuk | yeah thats your page |
| 22:02.20 | optikal | Would I do this to a site where hits matter? hell no |
| 22:02.30 | optikal | I run many websites that need IE/FireFox, and I code accordingly. |
| 22:02.33 | zardinuk | but I've been to huge websites that dont allow mozilla, even though I'm almost certain mozilla will render it fine enough for me |
| 22:02.49 | optikal | thats easy enough to get around |
| 22:02.54 | optikal | Theres an extension for it |
| 22:03.06 | zardinuk | some will even display the page for a split second then redirect me to a "you are using an incompatible browser!" page |
| 22:03.11 | zardinuk | which is ridiculous |
| 22:04.07 | optikal | =P |
| 22:04.20 | zardinuk | talk about an abuse of javascript, using it to send mozilla users elsewhere |
| 22:04.31 | zardinuk | using it to PO the mozilla users |
| 22:04.32 | xilch|w | dataw0lf: you can detect a js enabled browser in php - just have javascript value some hidden for element |
| 22:04.56 | xilch|w | *from element |
| 22:05.00 | xilch|w | dammit |
| 22:05.03 | synic | form* |
| 22:05.05 | xilch|w | *form |
| 22:05.08 | xilch|w | shut up you |
| 22:05.09 | synic | form* |
| 22:06.12 | zardinuk | you can keep writing stone age html if you think it is going to save you that 1 order from the guy running on a macintosh plus |
| 22:06.21 | xilch|w | xilch: I got to like javascript when I had to make a web app behave like a desktop |
| 22:06.29 | zardinuk | but sites like google are starting to move on |
| 22:06.45 | synic | xilch|w: who are you talking to ? |
| 22:06.45 | zardinuk | xilch|w: that's what I'm talking about, it makes very exceptional apps |
| 22:06.52 | zardinuk | people are impressed |
| 22:06.55 | zardinuk | i'd say it will earn sales |
| 22:07.24 | zardinuk | macnewbold: you still replying? |
| 22:07.28 | xilch|w | synic: I was talking to anyone who would listen to my sad, sad tales |
| 22:07.29 | synic | xilch|w: giving yourself notes for when you get home? |
| 22:07.46 | macnewbold | zardinuk: yeah, it's coming... I'm at work, and got caught up in something else (work) |
| 22:07.50 | macnewbold | it will be coming soon though |
| 22:08.02 | zardinuk | yeah I better get back to work |
| 22:11.01 | xilch|w | xilch: you are so cool |
| 22:11.13 | xilch|w | xilch: and smrt too |
| 22:12.16 | synic | xilch: don't listen to him. He's losing his mind. |
| 22:16.05 | *** join/#uphpu dataw0lf (~dataw0lf@dataw0lf.org) |