Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

can someone review my site

iann1982 said:
You need some validation on the field, check it's a valid URL, check it's not blank,

also,

http://www.cnn.com

returns

http://engine.puffinhost.com/u/?u=332

for the live service you need a shorter url.

Edit.. sorry late here - other than that - yea it works well!
Click to expand...
i will check the code but it does have vaildator and yes i am working on securing a smaller domain i having trouble with that part sorry but if the code works i am happy but i will look into both things
 
It says I should turn on JavaScript. Why should I? I see no reason for it to be a requirement. I hate when sites tell me I need JavaScript and don't tell me why, especially since it's often not needed.
 
angelwatt said:
It should degrade to a non-AJAX version for those without JavaScript. It would take little time to do.
Click to expand...

I actually have to disagree here as it is just becoming impossible to make web applications that degrade to non-javascript especially as more things like Sproutcore become more popular for making rich desktop like applications that run on javascript like Apples Mobile Me and i think in the future were just not going to see many sites that will function without javascript or at the most will have a separate version.

In a way i am torn between wanting the web to be easy but i also want to see wide adoption of desktop like apps getting on the web, and with html 5 with the work being put in for 3D graphics i would like to see the next blockbuster games being webapps that are accessible to all.
 
babyjenniferLB said:
I actually have to disagree here as it is just becoming impossible to make web applications that degrade to non-javascript
Click to expand...

In some web apps yes, but there's no reason for this one. Most of the web apps disregard blind users though and they become impossible to use for them. As someone with a disability I try to remember all users. Web developers should be following accessibility guidelines when possible. WebAIM has good sources on this topic. WAI-ARIA is also something developers should follow as browsers are better supporting it. Sites that consider all users generally end up creating a better user experience for everyone.
 
Well being dyslexic i do myself work my best to make my sites accessible to all users and it is the law here to do so regardless, but i also feel that the web should not forever stay limited to a digital news paper.
 
babyjenniferLB said:
Well being dyslexic i do myself work my best to make my sites accessible to all users and it is the law here to do so regardless, but i also feel that the web should not forever stay limited to a digital news paper.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification to say the web is only a digital newspaper if you're supporting JavaScript-disabled browsers. Things can be balanced with using progressive enhancement or graceful degradation. Not all visitors have to have the same exact experience. But when possible, developers should provide a functional web site to those without JavaScript (whatever their reason for not enabling it is). For instance, a visitor should not have to have JavaScript enabled simply to buy a product, but I come across sites that require it for such things and there's no reason to require it. Providing a non-JavaScript version generally doesn't take much extra work, it just takes some pre-thinking on how to lay out things.
 
i could write a non-ajax version but it isn't worth the time that i could be putting into new features and other things and i have google analytics looking at who as javascript enabled and it says 95.6% have it enabled and 4.4% disabled and that is out of 2000 unqs. so it isn't worth it sorry you have live with ajax
 
I wouldn't worry about it too much (the js vs. non-js discussion). URL shorteners are a dime a dozen these days, it's not like this one is going to make a major splash in TinyURL's traffic unless they offer something radically improved. I don't see that happening.
 
miles01110 said:
I wouldn't worry about it too much (the js vs. non-js discussion). URL shorteners are a dime a dozen these days, it's not like this one is going to make a major splash in TinyURL's traffic unless they offer something radically improved. I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

what radically would you like to see?????
 
there are quite a lot of websites that offer this service already.
eg www.cuthut.com

you will have to come up with something radical to overthrow them ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back