Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
31–40 of 93 posts
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#32Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
Don't even get a blank page :) Get a "Server not found"
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#33It would be nice if it sorted by relevance; i.e. a search for background would give you the definition of the background property first instead of the -webkit-background-composite property which is almost certainly less relevant (worse match, less used).
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#34Nice, but a few UX nitpicks:
* Default to sort by relevence: Put the more relevant matching properties at the top. For example, I type "backg" instead the highest result being the obscure "-webkit-background-composite" ... actually most relevant result "background" which should be the first result instead of the third.
* Default results list to condensed format: Instead of showing the full verbose docs for every matching result instead show a sparse summary of each result with a option to expand it. If there's only one matching result then show the complete doc for it
* Nice example palette for standard colors. How about an example palette for the standard font families?
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#35In addition to the complaints about this flooding history, I expect the "background" style to appear first once I've typed "bac", and even with "background" there's some webkit thing first.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#36Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
> What is wrong with you?
There's got a be a more polite way to phrase that.
Also, while I understand the reasons for disabling JavaScript generally, is this really something to get that upset about?
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#37Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
The percentage of users with Javascript disabled[1] is smaller than the percentage of users using Opera[2].
So there is nothing wrong with choosing to not support 2 out of every 100 users; that's simply a time/cost assessment. What's wrong with you?
[1] http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-...
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#38Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
The percentage of users with Javascript disabled[1] is smaller than the percentage of users using Opera[2]. So there is nothing wrong with choosing to not support 2 out of every 100 users; that's simply a time/cost assessment. What's wrong with you? [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-... [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Which is all well and good unless users don't have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The percentage of users with Javascript disabled[1] is smaller than the percentage of users using Opera[2]. So there is nothing wrong with choosing to not support 2 out of every 100 users; that's simply a time/cost assessment. What's wrong with you? [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-... [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Which is all well and good unless users don't have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers
Except, that's a poor argument: http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#40Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.
Yeah, how the OP dares to shows us a prototype of something that he probably hacked in a couple of hours and doesn't even support the very specific user that has JS disabled by default.