The Web Design & Development Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > The Web Design & Development Megathread

«‹›9 »

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I'd like to recommend two additions to the tools post:

http://winscp.net/ WinScp's interface sucks a lot less than FileZilla's and it does FTP just as well (since it uses FZ's FTP library in the background last I checked). The main selling point for me is that it'll download a file from the server, tell my configured editor about it and then watch the file for changes and send them to the server without my having to do any fiddling with the UI, unlike FZ.

http://fiddler2.com/ is incredibly useful for me at work because our stuff is usually included on someone else's page that I can't change at all - unless I have a proxy that will serve edited responses to my browser

If anything as good exists for Nix/OSX, I'd like to know.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2013 17:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:15

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Lumpy posted:

http://www.barrelny.com/blog/text-align-justify-and-rwd/

I imagine it'll be an unpopular opinion, but poo poo like this just depresses me.

"Hey look: I found a slightly less disgusting way to trick the layout engine into doing something that should and could be perfectly simple and straightforward except that the standards are hosed in the head and several other places I can't mention but my undiagnosed Stockholm Syndrome is preventing me from noticing!"

Instead, you get blog posts about how they were clever CSS lawyers and tricked the system into doing something that shouldn't require trickery in a sane system built to fulfill real-world requirements. I get the desire to crow about how awesome and clever you are, just not the lack of complaining about how much better things could and should be. Or is that all just sort of understood and people try to deal? I'm just constantly surprised at how little people complain about the box model and CSS Vs. how much people complain about a few features of JavaScript that, while terrible, are often avoidable, whereas 'Center thing A inside thing B' is both very common to have to do and surprisingly obtuse to get working unless thing A is a background in which case it's background-position: center. Welp, can't blog about that.

It's probably just that I haven't properly internalized the box model and modern CSS rules yet, but I'm not sure it'd even be all that useful because you still have to invent convoluted workarounds to get common things done and it's usually easier go ahead and google it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to start a derail, so if people want to yell at me lets try to take it elsewhere.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2013 22:02

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Maluco Marinero posted:

Yep, shits me cause I work on Ubuntu, but basically the only way to get good info out of the iPhone beyond alerts now, is USB + Safari. Can't even get at debug messages with just the phone now.

I've gotten it to work on an OSX VM running on top of VirtualBox. Thing is, OSX on the VM isn't what I'd call stable and of course the device won't deign to charge on hardware Apple hasn't anointed so the battery runs down really quickly, so it's not an ideal solution.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2013 15:05

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Lumpy posted:

http://theie8countdown.com/

People who use grey text on a slightly lighter grey background should have their teeth introduced to a brick, but it's encouraging to see the numbers so low.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 21:31

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Oh My Science posted:

SEO question.

A local print ship I frequent has asked me about SEO companies and I have no good recommendations. They tossed around the name Annzo Corporation and my initial research shows that they may not be very reputable. Can someone with more experience in this area give me advice? I have made some recommendations after reviewing their website but these are all simple changes like adding proper alt tags, they are interested in more I think.

A company I used to work for paid for SEOMoz: http://moz.com/ It wasn't terrible in that it found some stupid things I had done with our custom URL routing script that I never imagined a user/robot would do, so that was neat. Mostly I assume SEO is snake oil unless it comes straight from Google's recommendations because I've never had meaningful contact with an SEO consultant/specialist/guru/evangelist/ohgodwhatthefuckeverkillyourself that didn't convince me that they knew anything more than some buzzwords and how to cash checks. I swear I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but outside of intentional, flagrant Google bombing and not being a moron about site structure, I don't think there's really as much to it as some people want everyone else to believe.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2013 22:49

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I haven't used it yet but there's a Go thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3473284

# ¿ Jul 30, 2013 15:14

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I have a weird problem. I'm doing a pretty simple jQuery animation on a DIV to set its height. Doing that makes an absolutely-positioned child element invisible in some situations in some browsers. Chrome and iOS Safari both have the problem, but it goes away in Chrome if I run as close the the same code as possible on jsfiddle (haven't tried iOS).

This works as intended on Chrome and IE: http://jsfiddle.net/qC7RM/1/
This breaks (the DIV with the X in it disappears) on Chrome, iOS and IE: http://pastehtml.com/view/dbwi3x6dq.html

Both work on FF. Is this a bug or am I doing something incredibly stupid?

# ¿ Aug 9, 2013 19:27

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

kedo posted:

When you animate height (and many other things) jQuery sets overflow: hidden on the animating element. Your child element is outside of the normal, visible bounds of the parent element, so it's getting hidden while the animation occurs.

Possible solutions off the top of my head:
- Move the thing outside of the parent element
- overflow: visible !important (boooo)

e: Another option which I've done before in similar situations is to have the thing that's getting hidden fade out before the animation occurs and then back in once the animation finishes. It's not a perfect solution, but at least then it looks intentional.

Adding overflow: visible to the completion callback of the animation fixes it for my purposes because the whole container is actually hidden at the beginning in the real code for which this was a repro, so it looks perfectly natural live. Thanks. Still doesn't explain why the same (well, same-ish) drat thing is fine on jsfiddle and broken on the static HTML test.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2013 20:39

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Bognar posted:

Is the jsFiddle using the same jQuery version as you?

Not the same file. Same version from jsfiddle and from Google, though, so that could be it.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2013 20:56

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Scaramouche posted:

I'm doing some page speed optimization for someone because they've freaked out on Google using mobile performance as a metric, and after Google overhauled the page speed output page. So far relatively simple, I've sprited up some stuff, minified some others, etc etc. One thing that keeps coming up though is this, from the Facebook Like button:
"Compressing the following resources with gzip could reduce their transfer size by 99.5KiB (69% reduction).
Compressing http://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v2/yh/r/9Fgi3KsB6QZ.js could save 99.5KiB (69% reduction)."

The problem of course being, it's on a Facebook CDN, and I can't make them compress it (nor find an alternative way to get it). Am I just screwed, or is there another method to render a Facebook like button that I haven't found?

Don't those lazy-load by default? If not, lazy-load them. Nobody's going to be rushing to Like whatever is on your site within half a second of the first request.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2013 22:17

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Mr. Wynand posted:

And to be perfectly honest, I actually wish both Python and Ruby would just kill that loving feature dead. As far as I can tell, there is no "good" way to use __metaclass__ in Python, period. It is fundamentally broken. I have not seen a single use-case for it that justifies the complications it brings with it.

http://stackoverflow.com/a/6581949/301807 makes it sound like it's not all that bad and gives a decent example of how it's used (for good) in the real world.

As far as Python Vs Ruby as languages go, I've heard some stuff about Ruby that makes it sound kinda PHP-ish. Like that there's no grammar outside of what's ~~defined in~~ accepted by the official parser :ohdear:

Edit: implying that a parser implementation defines a grammar is wrong on a number of levels and I'm sorry anyone saw that

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Aug 15, 2013

# ¿ Aug 15, 2013 20:02

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Mr. Wynand posted:

Web Components

I can't even figure out what this clusterfuck is talking about half the time.

quote:

To register an event listener with an event controller, the template includes a <script> element. The script is run once when the decorator element is inserted into the document, or loaded as part of an external document.

Decorators can't contain script nodes because they can live ~anywhere on the web~, but their examples show decorators that contain templates which can contain script and the quote above seems to treat them as interchangeable :psyduck:

There needs to be a way to get people fired from the W3C. Or killed. I'm good with either.

I think the Shadow DOM could be used as a namespace only I can't figure out how their examples work. This is going to make inspecting code really loving annoying, either way.

Edit:

code:

.center{
   position: relative or absolute - whatever floats your boat;
   height: something;
   width: something;
   right: 50%;
   bottom: 50%;
   transform: translate(50%, 50%);
}

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Aug 20, 2013

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 18:33

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Bognar posted:

Now if only we could drop support for Internet Explorer.

Well obviously you gotta fill in all ~5 prefixes yourself because I was working from memory.

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 19:31

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I got to use that the other day in a module that only gets loaded in the presence of HTML5's media features. It was a good-ish day :unsmith:

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 21:16

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Do you guys set this on your new work?

code:

<meta name="viewport" content="user-scalable=no, width=device-width" />

# ¿ Aug 20, 2013 23:35

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Does anyone know of a reference to look up viewport widths based on mobile device and browser?

Edit: thought of a better query and found this which is only a half year out of date :v:

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Sep 11, 2013

# ¿ Sep 11, 2013 15:49

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Sereri posted:

I tried that recently but it went rather badly with the VirtualBox add-ons barely working or not at all. The UI-lag was pretty bad too thanks to there being no 2D-acceleration. Any suggestions besides "use a faster PC"?

If you're using 13, try switching to 12 (yeah, sorry) or disabling all of the stupid bullshit they added in 13. To make 13 usable, I went through everything in unity-tweak-tool and disabled any transparency and then in the compizconfig-setting-manager (ccsm) I turned off animations and fading windows. That mostly fixed the VM I updated to 13 without making a copy first :downsgun:

E: this is all to make the UI lag go away/be tolerable.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2013 21:00

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I'm trying to find a way, using just CSS, to do a layout like this with a video element.

The black box represents the containing element, not necessarily the viewport. The little red box is an overlay that scales to the video's size while maintaining position relative to the edges, so I'm assuming I need a wrapper div for the video that sticks to the edges of the video but somehow still allows the video to expand to fill just the narrowest axis in order to maintain the aspect ratio. In order to do that I guess I'd need some spacer elements? Hell, is this even possible without biting the bullet and doing the layout in JS?

Of note, only browsers that support video are of concern, so fun stuff like transforms are possible, but I've only figured out how to center it vertically by abusing transforms only to watch it get cut off at the top and bottom as soon as I make the container too small vertically.

Sorry I don't have any code because I've just been loving around in Chrome all day because making a clean repro of the original layout in jsfiddle is a pain in the dick.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2013 23:40

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Depressing Box posted:

Would something like this work?

That does what I have now (repro: http://jsfiddle.net/TGg94/), which works great until I want to overlay something over a specific part of the video that's not right in the center using just CSS which I want because I want it to continue to resize nicely without writing a bunch of JS. Plus, users would have to know to tell it to redraw when they resize its container and, in general, I'd rather not rely on other people to remember to do something.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2013 17:48

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

kedo posted:

http://jsfiddle.net/dEcZ7/ Ka-pow.

e: You don't even need to use the table-cell trick if you don't want for vertically centering. Point is just wrap the video and the overlaid element in an additional container, set position: relative; on the container, then absolutely position the overlay.

Thanks - that's much closer than I got using table layout trickery, but I was lazy about getting my repro right and it doesn't represent the behavior I need for when the container is vertically smaller than the video element. It's fixed here: http://jsfiddle.net/TGg94/1/ I'll try to get yours working from here http://jsfiddle.net/dEcZ7/2/ but I just had another idea that would require some JS setup, but there's a bunch of that going on anyway in the real thing, so it wouldn't be a huge deal.

# ¿ Oct 14, 2013 20:46

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

ASP MVC 3 people seem pretty rare in my area, too, so I view it as a good thing to get on the resume if you like getting paid pretty well

Munkeymon posted:

Thanks - that's much closer than I got using table layout trickery, but I was lazy about getting my repro right and it doesn't represent the behavior I need for when the container is vertically smaller than the video element. It's fixed here: http://jsfiddle.net/TGg94/1/ I'll try to get yours working from here http://jsfiddle.net/dEcZ7/2/ but I just had another idea that would require some JS setup, but there's a bunch of that going on anyway in the real thing, so it wouldn't be a huge deal.

Came up with a CSSy description of what I'm trying to do: make a div behave like a centered background image positioned with contain. Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure a table-based layout (meaning display: table) won't respect a set height, so I don't think that's workable.

Right now, all I can think of is creating an overlay by using a canvas to draw it, and then making the result the contain-positioned background of an overlay div. That seems somewhat hacky, but at least I'd really get to know my 'friend', the canvas.

# ¿ Oct 16, 2013 22:59

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Munkeymon posted:

Came up with a CSSy description of what I'm trying to do: make a div behave like a centered background image positioned with contain. Unless I'm missing something, I'm pretty sure a table-based layout (meaning display: table) won't respect a set height, so I don't think that's workable.

Right now, all I can think of is creating an overlay by using a canvas to draw it, and then making the result the contain-positioned background of an overlay div. That seems somewhat hacky, but at least I'd really get to know my 'friend', the canvas.

This is the working demo if anyone cares: http://jsfiddle.net/gmD9h/8/

# ¿ Oct 18, 2013 19:44

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Chrome's user agent hasn't changed significantly, though:

code:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.64 Safari/537.31
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.116 Safari/537.36
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/28.0.1500.71 Safari/537.36
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/29.0.1547.76 Safari/537.36
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/30.0.1599.101 Safari/537.36
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/31.0.1650.34 Safari/537.36

# ¿ Oct 31, 2013 23:22

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Thermopyle posted:

Well, if the theory that people are dropping XP is true, then it could be that they used Chrome on XP and when they switched to a newer operating system they didn't bother to go back because, while it still sucks, newer versions of IE are better.

Yeah, and 7 could be coming back because they look around and see that Vista was 'next' so clearly that's the one to 'upgrade' to. At least I think that's how normal people think.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 17:32

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I just did this with (a) sass (plugin for Visual Studio):

code:

%ui{
	position: absolute;
	bottom: $borderWidth;
	z-index: 2;
}

/*other ui-extending classes*/

%arrow{
	@extend %ui;
	/*blah*/
}

.leftArrow{
	@extend %arrow;
	left: $borderWidth;
	background-image: url("images/leftArrow.png");
}

and I'm getting %arrow classes in the generated CSS and a non-working .leftArrow class. Is my plugin broken or do extend chains not work by design?

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 20, 2013

# ¿ Nov 20, 2013 20:49

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Depressing Box posted:

Looks like the plugin might be broken. If I run this through the command-line tool:

code:

$borderWidth: 12px;

%ui {
  position: absolute;
  bottom: $borderWidth;
}

%arrow {
  @extend %ui;
  color: blue;
}

.leftArrow {
  @extend %arrow;
  left: $borderWidth;
  background-image: url("images/leftArrow.png");
}

.rightArrow {
  @extend %arrow;
  right: $borderWidth;
  background-image: url("images/rightArrow.png");
}

I get this:

CSS code:

.leftArrow, .rightArrow {
  position: absolute;
  bottom: 12px; }

.leftArrow, .rightArrow {
  color: blue; }

.leftArrow {
  left: 12px;
  background-image: url("images/leftArrow.png"); }

.rightArrow {
  right: 12px;
  background-image: url("images/rightArrow.png"); }

EDIT:

Placeholders are pretty handy when you're trying to cut down on duplicate rules or with OOCSS.

Thanks for the confirmation.

The plugin is spitting out this:

code:

%arrow {
  position: absolute;
  bottom: 12px; }

.leftArrow, .rightArrow {
  color: blue; }

.leftArrow {
  left: 12px;
  background-image: url("images/leftArrow.png"); }

.rightArrow {
  right: 12px;
  background-image: url("images/rightArrow.png"); }

So close

Edit: just found the part of the docs that says that should work. I really like this thing - probably because I was up and running after skimming the docs for about 30 minutes this morning :v:

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 20, 2013

# ¿ Nov 20, 2013 22:22

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

A MIRACLE posted:

And residual hate.

It's not residual when the old versions refuse to die because Microsoft won't backport the new versions to the old OSs. I still see several hundred variations on Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6% in our logging database for this very month.

I have no idea what Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 6.0; Windows 98) saw, but it looks like he didn't come back, so :thumbsup:

Edit: Actually, based on the number of these poor bastards that are still on SP1, I doubt they would have the new versions installed, anyway, so gently caress 'em.

Edit 2: I should point out that the % is the SQL wildcard, not 6% IE 6 or something. I just wanted to point out that they're out there and they want your spicy pages.

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Nov 22, 2013

# ¿ Nov 22, 2013 00:30

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Ghostlight posted:

I don't think Chrome likes whatever they've done with Source Sans.

Something on that page looks like poo poo on every browser I try :|

_{postprocessor} especially

# ¿ Dec 18, 2013 22:28

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

You know how when you use a video element and remove the native controls in order to make your own there's still a play button built into the element that pops up after a video finishes? Is there a way to get rid of that stupid thing without hiding the video element entirely? It's clashing with my style :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 16:35

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I prefer http://www.modern.ie/ie6countdown when I'm trying to convince someone to stop caring about IE6. It's Microsoft's own countdown to its own hellspawn's irrelevance :unsmigghh:

Actually, I guess that could backfire if you have a lot of customers in China, but eh

# ¿ Jan 20, 2014 17:05

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Ethereal posted:

You should still be using Apache/Nginx to front your webapp containers. You can serve static files directly to your CDNs through them as well as allowing route rewrites for other pieces of your stack. SSL termination is also a good thing to have. You can also have zero downtime deploys without needing a specific Webapp container that does so using Apache/Nginx which should absolutely be a part of your server stack in today's architectures.

You're talking about sticking an Apache/Nginx caching proxy in front of the production servers, right? If so, how would that get you zero downtime for dynamic content?

# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 18:07

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Is there a way to get a dropdown select box to work with the form validation and the 'required' attribute in a meaningful way? Since all of the options count towards the requirement and it'll never show an optgroup or diabled option as selected, the user doesn't have to interact with the thing at all to get past the browser's built-in validation. Yes, I'm also validating, but it'd be nice not to have two visually different validation systems getting in the users' ways.

Before you reply with "well don't make them interact with it", it's my job to make them interact with it, so just please don't bother.

E: I'm an idiot who skims documentation that tells me to use a blank value on invalid options as long as I bother to actually read it :cripes:

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Jan 29, 2014

# ¿ Jan 27, 2014 21:26

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I have a bit of a mess to clean up and part of that has been moving poo poo that used to be done with jQuery animations to CSS. In order to effect changes, I'm toggling classes on a container element and making CSS rules that look like this:

code:

#container #someStupidThing {
   display: none;
}
#container.state1 {
   display: inline-block-or-whatever-I-have-to-do;
}

Some of these can get deep enough (like 5 to 6 elements in from the container) that constructing that in SASS gets kind of annoying because all of the state cases end up living apart from their parents:

code:

#container {
  #a {
    #b {
      #c {
        #d {}
      }
      #e {
        #f {}
      }
    }
  }
  &.state1 {
    @extend #d {
      //where the hell am I from, again? 100 lines up? 150?
    }
    @extend #c {
      // hope nobody forgets this is here!
    }
  }
}

I haven't used SASS a lot, so if I'm making some obvious newbie mistake, that's why. Is there a better way?

Edit: changing the example before someone tells me this is a non-problem because I'm only changing one element

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Mar 4, 2014

# ¿ Mar 4, 2014 23:07

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

I'm being (overly?) defensive because the end goal is to make this usable by mostly-clueless people* as a widget on a page I don't fully control and I think I'd rather deal with complicated CSS than mysterious UI bugs that only happen during certain phases of the moon on the second Tuesday of the month when observed by an octagenarian with cateracts. It is explicitly not meant to be re-usable elsewhere in a site.

*think about the average Square Space user

Edit: maybe it'd be enough to slather everything in a prefix like

code:

$pfx: my-dumb-widget-name-gently caress-off;

.{$pfx}-contianer{
   //etc
}

hmm

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 5, 2014

# ¿ Mar 5, 2014 00:02

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Just want to point out that there is a thread with a supposedly real lawyer currently on page two of the COC list: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3611767 He might be a little more helpful.

# ¿ Apr 2, 2014 18:07

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Harik posted:

After how neat the data modeling was, and how nicely it works in the admin view automatically, they smack you with a template language that arc-welds logic to presentation. That's basically PHP from 20 years ago. Is this really the best that we can do in 2014?

Yes, django is better than that. It's just an awful piece of code to showcase as "how to make a django site", and more intros should focus on the best-practices that the framework supports, not "hello world". Now to find some examples of how to do it "right".

I'm really not sure what else you expected because every MVC framework I've ever seen that generates HTML looks like some version of that. You're right that it looks like super old PHP, but PHP at least started life as a reasonable templating language, so you're arguing against yourself on that point.

quote:

This exercise is in search of a framework that can show a realtime view of a database limited by an ACL for the user logged in - and lets me just take a designers HTML and auto-generate the backend JSON and frontend javascript to update the correct DOM node. Obviously all that together may be too much to ask, but is there anything that accomplishes big chunks of that?

In terms of types of things I need to do, consider a weather station aggregation website. Collection of data from dozens of different users who each can change some information for stations they control. Groups of stations by location and a live-view of data coming in.

Knockout, Angular or (maaaybe) React* all come to mind, but you're still going to have to wire stuff up yourself to some degree.

Maybe you want Meteor? Hope you like Mongo(loid)DB.

There are probably others I'm not familiar enough with, so hopefully someone else can fill up both in.

*_{I doubt you'll be anywhere near "dropping in" the designer's HTML with React}

# ¿ Apr 4, 2014 14:25

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

Misogynist posted:

Is this the new MiKKKro$haft, or what?

I can't make fun of badly written cargo-culty software? Everything I hear about it makes me want to avoid it, so I want to pass that along.

Meteor is a neat idea - just wish they had a better back end.

# ¿ Apr 4, 2014 17:42

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

supermikhail posted:

Chrome after a while stops reloading JavaScript and gets it from the cache which is annoying when I'm editing it (supposedly it's not just JavaScript, but this is what's annoying). How do you work this thing? (Right now I "Clear Browsing Data").

When dev tools is open, you can right-click on the reload button and select Empty Cache and Hard Reload

# ¿ Apr 29, 2014 15:44

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

supermikhail posted:

Thank you!

Yeah, they do a good job hiding useful features. Did you know you can make the dev tools dock to the right of the content instead of below it? They hide that option pretty well, too.

kedo posted:

Hard reloads also have easy keyboard shortcuts in Chrome: Cmd + Shift + R on Mac, Ctrl + F5 on Windows.

Use shortcuts for everything if you're a real man.

Empty Cache and Hard Reload doesn't have a shortcut

# ¿ Apr 30, 2014 16:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:15

Munkeymon: Aug 14, 2003; Motherfucker's got an
armor-piercing crowbar! Rigoddamndicu𝜆ous.

E: Disregard - it was not completely clear to me from Mozilla's docs that *-of-type only work on elements and not classes.

Munkeymon fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 23, 2014

# ¿ May 23, 2014 21:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > The Web Design & Development Megathread

«‹›9 »