World: r3wp
[Web] Everything web development related
older newer | first last |
Steeve 24-Sep-2010 [1797] | From Dario Giacomelli Registered on the R3 chat as Dario |
Henrik 24-Sep-2010 [1798] | wow, interesting |
Graham 24-Sep-2010 [1799] | http://it.linkedin.com/in/ingdariogiacomelli anyone game to test it out? |
Kaj 24-Sep-2010 [1800] | Many of the concepts are a lot like how I started the first phase of my CMS three years ago, but the implementation is a bit different |
BrianH 26-Jan-2011 [1801x2] | Is anyone here familiar with the current state of WYSIWYG web designers? Are there any decent current free ones? I'm only familiar with Kompozer (the new Nvu) and have heard good things about WebMatrix. This is for a person familiar with Frontpage, but I'm trying to disuade them from using it (for all our sakes), and don't want to encourage piracy of Dreamweaver or Expression Web. |
I haven't used Nvu or Kompozer for years, and only use code editors for my web work (or don't do web front end stuff at all). | |
Kaj 26-Jan-2011 [1803x2] | There's been a lull in KompoZer development, but it's reasonable now |
It still has a lot of quirks, though | |
BrianH 26-Jan-2011 [1805] | Are there any decent alternatives to it? |
Kaj 26-Jan-2011 [1806] | Sadly, no |
Ashley 27-Jan-2011 [1807] | Would using any modern word processor then saving as HTML be any worse than Frontpage? ;) I wouldn't do a complex site this way, but for a couple of static pages it may suffice. |
Henrik 27-Jan-2011 [1808] | Just don't use Frontpage. If you end up having to edit the pages later by hand, it's faster simply to build them by hand. |
Kaj 27-Jan-2011 [1809] | If Frontpage is the alternative, WebMatrix looks a lot better. However, it's focused on developers and complex backends. If the goal is simple web pages for a common user, KompoZer is probably better, and more in the ballpark of Frontpage |
Kaj 28-Jan-2011 [1810x3] | I just remembered that there's a successor to KompoZer: |
http://bluegriffon.org | |
It seems to be usable by now, but I have no experience with it | |
Ashley 28-Jan-2011 [1813] | It's HTML5/CSS3 support looks good. |
Robert 28-Jan-2011 [1814] | If you are on OSX take a look at Rapidweaver. Really good. |
GrahamC 28-Jan-2011 [1815] | Ashley didn't you have some web dialect you were doing? |
Ashley 29-Jan-2011 [1816] | Yes, I'm using it to generate web sites for clients ... but I want to add support for mobile devices (via jQuery Mobile) and solve the "one website for desktops, another for mobiles" problem (via "Responsive Web Design" techniques - see http://www.alistapart.com/articles/responsive-web-design |
GrahamC 29-Jan-2011 [1817] | That's scary if true .. mobile browsing expected to outpace desktop access in 3-5 years. |
Henrik 29-Jan-2011 [1818] | Steve Jobs made a good point in an interview not long ago: "PC's are going to be like trucks. Less people will need them. And this is going to make some people uneasy." |
AdrianS 29-Jan-2011 [1819] | why do you find it scary, Graham? |
GrahamC 29-Jan-2011 [1820] | it means we will have to recode all our websites! |
Ashley 29-Jan-2011 [1821] | Exactly, and there's the opportunity as most people (and tools) are still stuck with a "mywebsite.com for desktops and mywebsite.com/m for mobiles" model. |
GrahamC 29-Jan-2011 [1822x2] | I'm hoping that whatever framework I use will automatically adapt :) |
Or that mobile browsers will just cope | |
Maxim 29-Jan-2011 [1824] | designing for a small browser still requires re-designing the layout. no way round that. |
AdrianS 30-Jan-2011 [1825] | I'm not sure that there will be a distinction between mobile browsing and desktop browsing for too much longer (no longer than a decade, IMO). Just a few more tech advances in battery life will allow for practical pico projectors to be included into any mobile device. An alternative that increases viewable area is foldable displays - they exist already in prototype form - just need to be commercialized. HUDs and retinal displays are others. These are not sci-fi anymore. But if you're just talking about the next couple of years or so, I agree. |
Steeve 1-Feb-2011 [1826] | Between prototype and cheap commercialization, it can be decades. I remember having seen large flat screen TV proto in the early 80's (plasma). We had to wait until 2005+ to be able to buy them at low prices. |
Maxim 1-Feb-2011 [1827] | yeah the first not crappy plasma screens where 60000$ and they didn't come down for a long time. |
Pekr 12-Feb-2011 [1828] | It is a long time I last looked into ajax libraries. I know I tend not to use mainstream stuff, but often based upon coolness of the technology :-) Many ppl talk jquery, even MS is adopting it for SharePoint, but what about e.g.: Mootools YUI - http://yuilibrary.com/ Dojo Toolkit - http://dojotoolkit.org/ Sencha Touch - http://www.sencha.com/ DHTMLx - http://dhtmlx.com/ Prototype - http://www.prototypejs.org/ SmartGWT (successor to GWT) - http://www.smartclient.com/smartgwt/showcase/#main http://dojotoolkit.org/ Any experience, preference? What are YOU using? |
GrahamC 12-Feb-2011 [1829x2] | I'm still using JQuery .. but it's a hard slog. But I might switch to using Enyo if it's as good as it looks |
and of course it has to be released | |
Oldes 12-Feb-2011 [1831] | I'm using jQuery, becuase I'm lazy to write own stuff (which I consider better in most cases, because I usually need only minimal functionality provided by the jQuery) and want to spend as less time working on web as possible so I do not examine other frameworks. |
GrahamC 12-Feb-2011 [1832x2] | AFAIK, everyone here is using JQuery, or, have written their own frameworks |
I still also maintain another site in YUI | |
Oldes 12-Feb-2011 [1834x2] | but checking your links, I quite like Dojo |
I can imagine REBOL dialect to build code for many such a toolkits, but as I say.. I don't want to spend time on it at this moment. | |
GrahamC 12-Feb-2011 [1836x2] | I think dockimbel is also JQuery |
user | |
PeterWood 12-Feb-2011 [1838] | I used dojo a litle a whwile ago, I found the event handling very clean. I've read that dojo is stronger for single page apps that many of the other frameworks. |
Reichart 12-Feb-2011 [1839] | We use Quilt for Qtask, custom written of course. |
Maxim 14-Feb-2011 [1840] | I've also heard good comments about dojo. it looks better architectured overall, but that is just an impression. |
Reichart 14-Feb-2011 [1841] | I recently used Kompozer to build a quick site to fix a friend's site that was so bad I figured I could at least spend a few hours and take it from a 1 to a 6 (scale one to ten). There are a few variations of Kompozer. But Kompozer is the best of them. It still sucks though. When you do view source it does not put your cursor where you expect it to. It is nightmarish to figure out how to edit tables. But, over all, if you keep things simple, it works well enough. mobile browsing expected to outpace desktop access in 3-5 years. Most of the world lives on their cell phones. As to JavaScript Frameworks to fix the biggest human fail in computer history (that being that we use HTML+JavaScript to build UserInterface), having headed the creation of a complete UI system that is delivered through the web, I will say the following: - Find something that handles Tables (grids, lists) well. Make sure it does verything you need. - Make a list for yourself of widgets you care about, and confirm (assume nothing) about the level of detail with which they operate. For example, Imagine 3 radio buttons, on the web they have no default state, and some interfaces allow them to operate like checkboxes, not radio buttons. Again, assume nothing! - Confirm, for yourself, they work on the platforms you care about. Nothing works on everything, even when they claim it. I did not want to build Quilt, but we still don't know anything that comes close other than Tibco's crap, and I'm not sure they even sell it anymore. (I recall it was like $100K). |
Oldes 15-Feb-2011 [1842] | I must correct myself.. I don't want to write my own JS stuff anymore... I just found that one old script (simple menu running on the site many years) stopped working in IE8. I don't want to deal with browser's (un)compatibilities anymore.. better to use an obscure framework or don't use JS at all. |
Maxim 28-Apr-2011 [1843x3] | a good resource I found to start using HTML 5 and help make those pages work somewhat backwards compatible on non html5 browsers. http://diveintohtml5.org/ |
I haven't finished reading, but so far I like it. I like the writing style. | |
it has a nice retrospect of HTML and tackles a single question... "why do we have an <IMG> tag in html?"... the answer is surprisingly simple and evocative: The ones that win are the ones that ship. funny... the leading OS is called WINdows ;-) | |
Janko 28-Apr-2011 [1846] | about JS libs: I don't use jQuery .. it's oweblown for what I want (I don't need it to reinvent javascript). If I need any complex components like datepicker (which I don't want to reinvent) I use mootools usually (because you can use just needed parts of it). jQuery UI modules (which has this) are very very slow and CSS is so complex I don't even start to get it how to customize it. Dojo always seemed this mega lib that I don't want either. If I go to their demos (at least last time I looked) everything is slow and unresponsive. I want my things to be slim on code and snappy. Prototype (mootools does this also, but I think a little less) is first generation JS lib (that started it all). I think it heavily monkey patches the core JS/DOM objects.. thats why I don't like it. I also neve use css3 selectors in my JS code (that is a major part why people use jquery and likes). I always move relative to an element with seekFwd, seekIn, seekOut, seekBack fuctions I have or just use ID of element (and then seek if needed). |
older newer | first last |