Rad. Lose this "gimmeh teh CSS docs." to get taken seriously.
Agreed, "gimmeh teh" is lolcats idiocy instead of a professional tool. I'm embarrassed to have it up on my monitor in a work setting.
InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
71–80 of 93 posts
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#72Hey there, creator of instacss here. Thanks for all the feedback! I posted this as a Show HN last week, but it's nice to see that someone has re-discovered it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 . Since then I've added a few features, one of which being the ability to have permalinks so that you could use it as a google chrome search. This is why I push to the url bar as you type. I'm really open to feedback…
Though the MDN docs are down right now check out the replaceState method. It allows to write over the url (on the same domain) without creating a new history object. This is a textbook example of where using replaceState would make sense.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#73Some linking love to MDN and highlighting the wiki property would be nice.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#74Oh 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 creator of this website, rgarcia, specifically said (when he posted it a couple of days ago) that it was a 24-hour project: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 Cut him some slack! I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of friendliness.
That is a relevant piece of information I hadn't known. Thank you.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#75Oh 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?
"Doesn't function right without JavaScript" disabled rates a shrug - JS enables lots of cool stuff. "Displays a completely blank page without JavaScript" is - well, in this case, as others have pointed out, one of the tradeoffs made in pursuit of a 24-hour project. However, in a mature site (I'm looking at certain MSDN blogs), it's very disturbing, it's a big warning flag for "lack of attention to detail."
My reactions to broken-without-JS sites spring from security, privacy, usability, and accessibility concerns. "Sites that completely break without JS" is a category that strongly correlates with "sites that have major issues in at least one of those four categories."
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#76Earlier 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
There is something wrong - in many countries you are mandated by law to make your site accessible :) Of course this doesn't apply here, but I wanted to be dramatic. Should be piece of cake to just show the full content if javascript is off, since it is already loading all of it.
Screen readers support Javascript-enabled browsers these days.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is all well and good unless users don't have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers
How many web developers looking up CSS reference material are using screen readers though? It's OK to develop for your target audience, right?
I admit I'm atypical here, but I do all my development work in emacs, and it's nice to have reference material that can also be accessed through emacs.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#78searching for cursor yielded some nice content. A few proprietary things I didn't know about. Thanks!
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is something wrong - in many countries you are mandated by law to make your site accessible :) Of course this doesn't apply here, but I wanted to be dramatic. Should be piece of cake to just show the full content if javascript is off, since it is already loading all of it.
Screen readers support Javascript-enabled browsers these days.
Accessibility is not just about screen-readers. There are hundreds of mobile browsers, consoles and a myriad of other devices with zero to broken javascript support. And even in screen-readers that do support JS, most interactions are broken unless you use proper mark-up and manage page focus and keyboard shortcuts.
The point is that it's trivial to make a site like this usable without JS, with little effort. You just have to start with the right mindset.
Re: InstaCSS: the CSS docs you always wish you had
#80Earlier 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
There is something wrong - in many countries you are mandated by law to make your site accessible :) Of course this doesn't apply here, but I wanted to be dramatic. Should be piece of cake to just show the full content if javascript is off, since it is already loading all of it.
I can't reply to your last comment, so I'm going to to it here:
> The point is that it's trivial to make a site like this usable without JS, with little effort. You just have to start with the right mindset.
How are you supposed to make a instant search usable without JS?
If it doesn't need to be instant, just normal search with a nice GET /search?q=border, one would have to program a server side script to do that search.
Or maybe you'd just want to show the whole reference on the HTML, then the JS would have to use that to do the search and hide/show the appropriate div, or you'd have to load everything twice (once in the HTML body and again via ajax). Even then, what's the point? It's a instant search. If the user can't use the only feature of it, he's better off googling.
Is there other way that I'm missing? I don't see that as "trivial".