Hmm .. I kinda like it.
The new Digg
121–130 of 209 posts
Re: The new Digg
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not worth keeping your brand looking right? This is not about code, this is about their brand and how they protray themselves. If people see a broken website (for any reason, be it cookies, JS, or whatever), they will think less of the brand. Like you said, "...you compare the cost of the effort against the value added". It does not add anything to the brand, but not having a fallback takes away from it. And given Di…
If >1% see a broken website, and >99% see them reviving a dead platform extremely quickly It is their tradeoff to make, personally I think they are making the right one.
Honestly, how much time can including a tag can take?
Simple as:
Digg is awesome with javascript turned on.
on top of their other markup. That's it. Twenty seconds tops.
Re: The new Digg
#123Personally, and I'm probably in a minority, I hate these huge, slabby, infinitely scrolling displays of photos/images with precious few items on the screen. It's a lot of work to try to find any sensible number of items of interest. I seriously prefer an interface like HN - spare, clean, and information rich. Added in edit: I my POV differs significantly from that of jgrahamc: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4321…
Agreed. It works with sites like snip.it because no one post is more important than the other, but in Digg's case, you want people landing on the page and knowing right away what they should be looking at.
Re: The new Digg
#124I am getting "504 Gateway Time-out" when I visit the page
Re: The new Digg
#125"504 Gateway Time-out". Seems quite a radical redesign.
Re: The new Digg
#126From a technical point of view this "redesign" scares me a bit: All the old stories and user accounts 404 now. That is a major loss to their SEO. 14 million pages just thrown away and not passing any juice. They don't employ canonical or robots.txt. They have character encoding issues. ("'Superbird' Discovered") They use a meta keywords tag, and it contains "celebrity news", which doesn't appear anywhere on their sit…
Another piece that is scary: I've seen two 504's out of the five times I have refreshed the page.
Same here. Doesn't bode well, does it?
Re: The new Digg
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
The layout breaks without javascript on I see this bandied about on reviews of various sites, and I continue to believe it doesn't matter. If you have Javascript turned off and a page doesn't load, you should know why that page isn't loading. It's because you deliberately broke it for yourself.
You are free to believe that. But let us say I want to cater both to you and to another user that browses the web with NoScript (assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible). I have two options: A) make the layout accessible without JavaScript B) break the layout without JavaScript. Only with option A do I cater to both of you -- Regardless of deliberate breaking or bandied opinions ("Thou shalt never…
>assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible
The thing is, it's not your goal to cater to as many users as possible. It's your goal to optimize your ROI on development time. The reason we have to have laws about accessibility is that your average fast food place knows that wheelchair-bound hamburger sales will never make back the cost of constructing a wheelchair ramp. The economics of the situation wouldn't provide for disabled people, so we have to have regulation to make sure they get taken care of.
(And before anyone jumps on that and misinterprets me, I am not comparing disabilities to turning off JavaScript. I'm simply showing by example that it is not good business to try to grab every possible customer at any cost.)
Re: The new Digg
#128[deleted]
Re: The new Digg
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
The layout breaks without javascript on I see this bandied about on reviews of various sites, and I continue to believe it doesn't matter. If you have Javascript turned off and a page doesn't load, you should know why that page isn't loading. It's because you deliberately broke it for yourself.
You are free to believe that. But let us say I want to cater both to you and to another user that browses the web with NoScript (assume it is my goal to cater to as many users as possible). I have two options: A) make the layout accessible without JavaScript B) break the layout without JavaScript. Only with option A do I cater to both of you -- Regardless of deliberate breaking or bandied opinions ("Thou shalt never…
It wasn't their goal to cater to as many users as possible.
Their goal was to build a MVP as quickly as possible.
Re: The new Digg
#130I am getting "504 Gateway Time-out" when I visit the page
Me too.