General discussion

Locked

Fill in the blank: The web "Feature" I can live without is__

By Jaqui ·
to start it off I'll say Multimedia Content.

What website "features" really do nothing to improve your internet activities?

edited for typo

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

70 total posts (Page 3 of 7)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Client side scripting

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Fill in the blank: The we ...

That should exorcise more than a few demons.

Collapse -

But ... but ... but

by jc williams In reply to Client side scripting

In public websites, I could not agree more, if it does not make any sense. However, when it comes to extra and intra nets, it is hard not to create a decent application without the use of client-side coding. It would be really, really, really, nice if someone (read something I am playing with) would develop a business-class browser that supports little things like validation and different input methods that one currently has to write scripting to perform. Anyone else interested in this endeavor??? If so, contact me and who knows ...

Now, on to the proper use of csc (client side scripting) ... If the site has a true use for the script, i.e. providing an appointment scheduling system for patients of a doctor, then scripting should be used. If, it is used only to provide a cutsie roll-over effect for those bloated .gif buttons with the funny animations, then it should be hacked out of the page!

There are legitmate usages for scripting, until someone comes up with a browser that allows for a super set of the html tags that allows for some business-class functions to be a portion of the browser and not having to script them.

Collapse -

er, no

by apotheon In reply to But ... but ... but

I think, to solve the problems you're talking about, what you want is dedicated client applications to interface with servers, bypassing the browser entirely. That, or a stateful connection wrapping your HTTP connections. The former doesn't require a rewrite of the browser (or any browser at all, actually), and the latter just requires functionality all browsers should have anyway once it's worked into the browser (perhaps by way of SSH tunneling).

Collapse -

Been there ...

by jc williams In reply to er, no

What I am talking about is something that is not client based. We already do that and every time we want to make an upgrade, we have to push the upgrade to all of the computers in our environment. If you run an extranet, then what happens if a portion of your clients are runing a version of *nix, some Mac, and still others M$windoze. I don't want to develop all of the extranet and internet applications in a multitude of different platform dependent (we had this discussion before) client applications. Even without multiple OS considerations, just the thought of writing an updater (ala AOL, WOW, and several others) just to keep all of the versions of the application up to date makes me want to go onto Fear Factor as at least I know that the crapppp that you have to go through there is only for a short duration.

As far as statedness of the application, I have no problem there as I use tools that help me maintian the state of the application. I do have a problem with the requirement to send down all of the page each time you make a change to a control (if you do it the .NET way), or use AJAX (a "new" name for the original Java Remote Scripting stuff that I have been doing for years) ... oops ... that is scripting. ]:)

As far as validation, you can do some validation at the client side, or suck up bandwidth passing stuff back and forth between the server and client (again M$ asp.nuts way). I don't like "postback" because it increases traffic that can be avoided. I design all of my apps in the MVC fashion and try to do as much validation on the client side, where the response is much faster. Besides, you are not clogging up the bandwith sending things like two date strings to see if a) thay are valid dates, and b) if one date is not less than the other, then if there is a problem, creating an html page to send to the user that there is a problem. Then you take their response and resend the original page and now figure out how to send them back to the first date prompt. All the while, poor Mary Clutzfingers is having to endure the repeated flashing of the page and watching the magic bouncing page (assuming that it is some form like a journal entry process that will cause the page to scroll) as M$ asp.nuts refocuses the control, starting at the top of the newly re-sent page. However, that also requires scripting.

Now, seeing that we are bantering this subject around on the web ... I guess that the scripts that support this page also don't meet with your approval???

ciao for now ...

Collapse -

Actually they don't meet

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Been there ...

his approval, or mine !

Updates of applications over varying versions of windows is a problem.

Client side scripting is problem over various browsers though. Course you can use base IE functionality and then cross your fingers and hope your application is so greate people switch browsers to use it, no matter the risk.

Mary Clutzfinger's problems are my main objection to client side scripting, along with the fact that any complex system quickly becomes a very expensive mess to maintain, very quickly.

Collapse -

add to that

by Jaqui In reply to Actually they don't meet

the EXTRA size of the file for the clientside script to be sent..every time the page is sent.

then the issue, is the scripting language you picked available for the client browser / system?
can it write to the hard drive? [ even setting a cookie is doing that ] if it can write to the hard drive then it is an unacceptable security risk to the client system.

Collapse -

Don't agree

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to But ... but ... but

So called web applications are an unmaintainable inefficient kludge designed for people without the skills to do it properly.

The only thing they have going for them is the fact that you don't need to install anything except the browser.

However the various vendors of this pitiful technology crapped all over that with a multidude of proprietry definitions, parsing engines, behaviours et al.

Don't even get me started on java applets or that activex rubbish. Just a disaster, that was waiting to happen.

Now we get this ajax crap, I got broadband so i could do things faster not so some skillless bumpkin could use the wrong tool, and my resources to sell me some garbage I didn't want in the first place.

Use hammers on nails, drivers on screws and spanners on nuts, it's much easier now and far less expensive in the long run.

You want effects use css, you want stateless processing do server side, you want stateful interaction with a server write a client.

Collapse -

https://

by Absolutely In reply to Fill in the blank: The we ...

The most "'secure' socket layer" can do to make MY data "secure" is make interception and decoding inconvenient. Until I'm transmitting data over fiber optic cables with quantum encryption, I know my data isn't "secure".

Collapse -

hyperlinks, and everything since

by Absolutely In reply to Fill in the blank: The we ...
Collapse -

not so sure about that

by w2ktechman In reply to hyperlinks, and everythin ...

I like hyperlinks, and email hyperlinks, at least when on a reputable site.
I dont mind cookies in some cases, but too many places use way too many of them.
Pop-ups are ok when navigating away from the page you are looking at to go to another page that I click a link on, otherwise its too much crap.
Ads and intent to draw me somewhere I dont want to go, or install something that I dont want. Mostly I agree with multimedia content, a good waste of space and annoyance which only benefits the truly ignorant.

Back to Desktop Forum
70 total posts (Page 3 of 7)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums