|
I still have to support (read: make sure content is readable) in IE9 so Browserstack is useful. You can open the nested browser's own dev tools so that helps at least though running a VM with the browsers in question is still best.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
PT6A posted:I just ignore ancient IE versions at this point -- I don't even mention them to clients. Better to ask forgiveness than permission, and so far I've had zero complaints in the past five years anyway. It's been so nice to be able to use things in HTML5 and CSS3 without anyone complaining. I wonder how much of that is because more people are looking at sites on their phones and tablets, which bypass that whole outdated IE problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:It's been so nice to be able to use things in HTML5 and CSS3 without anyone complaining. I wonder how much of that is because more people are looking at sites on their phones and tablets, which bypass that whole outdated IE problem. This is a major factor now, yeah. It also means that we're stuck worrying about old versions of Safari on iOS and WebView on Android. It's amazing having every browser vendor start to keep things up to date. Firefox dev edition just updated to release 52, which adds CSS grid support. Check out that link if you haven't seen what the current spec can do. Both Firefox and Chrome are expected to have implementations released in March. Safari's working on it as well, but hasn't said when it'll be in a stable release. IE and Edge shipped with an earlier version of the spec, and the Edge team has the current standard in their backlog. "Evergreen" browsers on the desktop are amazing, but we're going to have to deal with out of date mobile devices for a while. For better or worse, those devices often won't last more than five years...
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Can you guys help me decide between Affinity Photo or Affinity Designer as an OSX alternative to Paint.NET? I've been doing all of my web dev recently on a Macbook Pro thanks to work and so now I can consider software that was previously unavailable to me on Windows. I've heard good things about Sketchapp, too, but that seems more oriented towards UI mockups? I just need something with layers that'll let me quickly crop and save images, add (and edit previously added) text with basic effects like outlines, and draw arrows and stuff for when I'm prepping screenshots for documentation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
IAmKale posted:Can you guys help me decide between Affinity Photo or Affinity Designer as an OSX alternative to Paint.NET? I've been doing all of my web dev recently on a Macbook Pro thanks to work and so now I can consider software that was previously unavailable to me on Windows. I've heard good things about Sketchapp, too, but that seems more oriented towards UI mockups? I just need something with layers that'll let me quickly crop and save images, add (and edit previously added) text with basic effects like outlines, and draw arrows and stuff for when I'm prepping screenshots for documentation. Designer is a vector app more like Sketch. Photo is a raster app a la photoshop. If you are getting photoshop files as input, Photo is the winner. If you are just adding things on top of flat images, and need to edit later, any of them will work. Photo and Designer both have free trials, so try them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
So Adobe XD launched a Windows Beta today. Anyone have any experience using it for web design? How does it compare to Photoshop? Basically I tried Affinity Designer, liked it, but not enough to try to get my team to switch to it and adjust workflows and I want to know if XD might be worth it eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Maleh-Vor posted:So Adobe XD launched a Windows Beta today. Anyone have any experience using it for web design? How does it compare to Photoshop? I've been trying it out today, it's pretty feature bare. No guides, masking, or layers panel. I will say that it runs amazing, designing it for Windows 10 only was a good move. I'll definitely be switching from Photoshop to it when they've added a few more features in the coming months, but right now it's just kind of annoying to use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
I'm building a kiosk app for touchscreens. As hard as it is to believe, these devices won't have access to the internet so I've had to make something that works offline. I considered installing LAMP or XAMPP on the individual devices but these are going to be used at an event while I'm on my Christmas holiday so I wanted to avoid the chance of Apache or PHP or something not working. It's a real simple information thing so I've just made it with local HTML files that Chrome opens fine. The problem is it uses a lot of high resolution imagery and without any kind of server there doesn't seem to be any caching going on at all. There's a large background image for every page and you can see it flash white before the image loads. Are there any options for improving performance when I'm just loading pages with the file:/// protocol?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
IDK how caching could help since it'd presumably just be reading the files off of the same flash they already live on. You'd probably be better served by compressing the images (since it's a kiosk, no sane person is going to stick their nose in the screen) or making some kind of interstitial loading screen. Yeah, I know the latter is kinda gross, but  E: compressing and maybe also making them progressive JPGs since that's basically designed to make something appear as quickly as possible Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 15:53 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:some kind of interstitial loading screen Is that possible on file:// pages? I don't think you can use JS there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
The only limits with file:// and Chrome are inability to use WebWorkers, everything else is fair game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:IDK how caching could help since it'd presumably just be reading the files off of the same flash they already live on. You'd probably be better served by compressing the images (since it's a kiosk, no sane person is going to stick their nose in the screen) or making some kind of interstitial loading screen. Yeah, I know the latter is kinda gross, but Thanks, I'll look into that. I should have mentioned that the kiosks are 42" touchscreens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:Thanks, I'll look into that. I should have mentioned that the kiosks are 42" touchscreens. Oh, I did assume tablets, so there are more options other than web servers if they're running off of full, un-gimped operating systems. You could try setting up an in-memory filesystem to serve the images off of, for example. That'd force them into memory (twice, but RAM is cheap so hopefully you've got headroom).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
A few years back, I had a similar problem with IE on a kiosk web site. I was able to fix some image timing problems by making a list of all the images and loading them silently with an XHR on the first page. It's loving stupid, but it forced the images into the browser's cache. Might help your situation, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
IDK if the speed of your storage is your limiting factor, but you might try keeping your files on a RAM drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
rt4 posted:A few years back, I had a similar problem with IE on a kiosk web site. I was able to fix some image timing problems by making a list of all the images and loading them silently with an XHR on the first page. It's loving stupid, but it forced the images into the browser's cache. Might help your situation, too. Just wrap the entire site in a frame and have a frameset keep the images in cache.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
XHR/AJAX doesn't seem to work with file://: I get CORS errors
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Just wrap the entire site in a frame and have a frameset keep the images in cache. That's really clever
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:XHR/AJAX doesn't seem to work with file://: I get CORS errors You can flip that and all sorts of things off by starting Chrome (and other browsers) with flags / switches. Google will learn you how because I forget.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
IAmKale posted:Can you guys help me decide between Affinity Photo or Affinity Designer as an OSX alternative to Paint.NET? I've been doing all of my web dev recently on a Macbook Pro thanks to work and so now I can consider software that was previously unavailable to me on Windows. I've heard good things about Sketchapp, too, but that seems more oriented towards UI mockups? I just need something with layers that'll let me quickly crop and save images, add (and edit previously added) text with basic effects like outlines, and draw arrows and stuff for when I'm prepping screenshots for documentation. I use Pixelmator for quick edits like you describe. Sketch is a vector-based tool that is basically _the_ Adobe stack alternative in the design world, but it is absolutely useless for bitmap work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is a script or a css question. I have a small arrow icon that is horizontal on big screens. The icon is done with a class. What I'd like to do is make the arrow icon vertical (basically changing the class) when it's on a small screen or resized. Can i use media queries for that? Or would I have to use jquery to listen to the browser change size and then change the class? Any help is appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
You could do it with CSS media queries alone. If you want to use the same icon and simply rotate it with a transform: code:code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Just wrap the entire site in a frame and have a frameset keep the images in cache. This is old school af, respect!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I'm building a kiosk app for touchscreens. As hard as it is to believe, these devices won't have access to the internet so I've had to make something that works offline. I considered installing LAMP or XAMPP on the individual devices but these are going to be used at an event while I'm on my Christmas holiday so I wanted to avoid the chance of Apache or PHP or something not working. <body style="background: {hex colour)"> Near instant load, just pick a similar colour to the image that loads. The other stuff is a better solution, but this is idiot proof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
well why not posted:<body style="background: {hex colour)"> "Every time you make something idiot proof, God makes a better idiot."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
I'm remaking my portfolio site, and last time I made it I got into a bit of trouble with linking to sites because my old employer said it "messed up their analytics". That was probably just an excuse for them to not allow me to use the sites I made for them on my portfolio, but I was wondering if there was a way to mask where the links are coming from so a client won't see my portfolio site as the one that directed to their site.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:I'm remaking my portfolio site, and last time I made it I got into a bit of trouble with linking to sites because my old employer said it "messed up their analytics". That was probably just an excuse for them to not allow me to use the sites I made for them on my portfolio, but I was wondering if there was a way to mask where the links are coming from so a client won't see my portfolio site as the one that directed to their site. Use a URL shortening service. Also, unless you had a terrible employee contract with them, you're well within your rights to link to a public site on the internet from your portfolio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, tell them to show you where your contract says you can't link to a site on the internet. Aside from that you could maybe use nofollow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow if you care about the analytics for a company you don't work for, for some reason. I'd tell them to suck it and that they're welcome for the free pagerank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Yeah it's probably just some SEO doofus making things up and pitching a fit about it because that's most of their job in my experience
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
No offense but how much traffic could you really be sending them? Are they THAT low traffic? Also linking to live sites is the devil anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I'm sure it has everything to do with the employer not wanting "their work in someone else's portfolio," because I've seen it happen dozens of times and each time the company in question would invent some idiotic justification. IMO give the company credit in your portfolio (eg. "Produced during my employment with [company name]"), and link to the site if you want. They probably won't do anything. The worst that could happen is that their lawyer might send you a takedown request, but no one is getting sued over putting public links in their portfolio. e: Unless you signed some draconian employee agreement that prevents you from using work in your portfolio. rt4 posted:Yeah it's probably just some SEO doofus making things up and pitching a fit about it because that's most of their job in my experience https://www.stilldrinking.org/trolling-marketers-for-profit-and-pleasure
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I ignored them for months until they called me using a number I didn't recognize and I foolishly picked up, and my old boss threatened to sic a lawyer on me. At that point I'd already found a new job and didn't care enough to fight them, and had found a bunch of legal-looking things online that I thought said any work I did for them was their property and they could ask me to take it down. I did at one point sign a non-compete agreement that had already expired years beforehand. Now it's years later and my design skills have improved immensely, so I wouldn't even put those sites on my portfolio anymore. Besides, they've since lost almost all the clients they had from when I was working for them, whether I worked on the projects or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:I ignored them for months until they called me using a number I didn't recognize and I foolishly picked up, and my old boss threatened to sic a lawyer on me. At that point I'd already found a new job and didn't care enough to fight them, and had found a bunch of legal-looking things online that I thought said any work I did for them was their property and they could ask me to take it down. I did at one point sign a non-compete agreement that had already expired years beforehand. Now it's years later and my design skills have improved immensely, so I wouldn't even put those sites on my portfolio anymore. Besides, they've since lost almost all the clients they had from when I was working for them, whether I worked on the projects or not. Did you leave that job under good terms? Or are they just generally pissed at you for something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
edit: fixed!
UGAmazing fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Dec 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Dumb-assed question that for the life of me I can't find any straight answers about. For HTML5 number inputs, how do you specify the way the field renders commas and decimal points? We want to display "fancy" input fields where numbers look like 1,000.00 instead of straight 1000, and we couldn't figure out a way to do that with anything other than text inputs. There's some posts out there involving the step attribute and what language the element is set to, but none of those seem to work for me. Anyone have a better solution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Dumb-assed question that for the life of me I can't find any straight answers about. For HTML5 number inputs, how do you specify the way the field renders commas and decimal points? We want to display "fancy" input fields where numbers look like 1,000.00 instead of straight 1000, and we couldn't figure out a way to do that with anything other than text inputs. There's some posts out there involving the step attribute and what language the element is set to, but none of those seem to work for me. Anyone have a better solution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
To be fair, the landsscape is pretty lovely for the number type: https://www.slightfuture.com/webdev/html5-input-number-localization - things may improve but only towards interchangeable decimal punctuation, not 'pretty' number rendering. My conclusion in other places I've done this is you're out of luck if you need to use the number input type. You CAN use a text field with the 'pattern' attribute (check https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input) to restrict a text field to the desired characters though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Just curious what you guys like better: Bootstrap layout (fixed or fluid) or just using flexbox? I've been trying to dive deeper into Bootstrap design and it's a pain in my loving rear end. Flexbox is just easy to me. teen phone cutie fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Grump posted:Just curious what you guys like better: Bootstrap layout (fixed or fluid) or just using flexbox? Doesn't Bootstrap 4.x make use of Flexbox? Might be worth having a look at that. I do agree that Flexbox is a hell of a lot easier all around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Bootstrap is my go-to grid system because it's super easy to get a responsive site up but you have to explicitly set all of those different column classes for different browser widths like, class="col-sm-12 co-md-push-3 col-md-6 col-lg-12" and classes become ugly and bloated. For real sites/apps I would use sass/susy or whatever preprocessor and bake that stuff into your nicely named classes. So I guess if you're struggling with bootstrap and flexbox makes sense to you just use flexbox- you'll avoid the ugly bloated class names thing too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2016 04:33
|
|
