I have been writing an application where my instinct was to put one form on the page and tell by the button click what was submitted. After getting my knickers in a twist I opted for as many as twenty forms on the page, which actually made sense after I did it. Maybe it depends on the application, but for me each grouping was distinct enough that using a unique form has made maintenance and troubleshooting easier on the front and back end.
As for the IE8 default behavior, I usually use PHP to write common headers to the HTML document, so adding one more line isn't too big a deal. I'm not thrilled MS decided to default to bad behavior, but until they ask for my opinion I'll assume they aren't interested.
There are multiple layers to the answer. Briefly, a basic site will work regardless. Unobtrusive methods of enhancing a site (or Web 2.0ing, if you prefer) can either use minimal hacks or degrade gracefully. Either way, unnecessary markup (the "crazy CSS/image methods" and "nested DIVs") to achieve the desired result is not semantic. Older browsers don't choke on nested DIVs; rather, they choke on the nutty stuff we try to do with them. On the other hand, screen readers or accessibility tools may choke on non-semantic markup.
There are very few required hacks to produce a usable, attractive site in IE6. No, it doesn't play nice when it comes to RIAs, but maybe that's a different problem.
FYI - "Semantic" means that your markup defines your document structure, rather than your markup defining your presentation.
The issue is that it likely won't become any easier to update those 50,000 people (unless massive lay-offs have been planned), and the more revisions/patches/etc. over which the update spans means more regression testing, more time, and even more money.
Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...
A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.
Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?
I think there is an overwhelming amount of fear/misinformation among corporate IT and their seeming inability to allow IE6 to die. Fear of the unknown. And maybe a little laziness/love of the status quo.
Two years ago a client of mine (a very large corporation) nearly shit when I set their web site to require 128-bit encryption. Apparently the law of the land forced IE6 and lower encryption for no other reason than it would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard.
Again, the sell of LEDs (or even incandescents) is the way the wear and dim. I have a four-light fixture in my bathroom currently showing four different level of luminosity. No bulb is more than 1.5 years old, and all came out of the same package. They start out giving off bright, white light, but fade steadily such that no two bulbs emit the same if they weren't replaced within a few weeks of each other.
My friend replaced all the bulbs in his house with CFL, and his main complaint is that the recessed ceiling lights have very limited dimming capability. In fact, he changed one room back to incandescent.
CFLs were rammed down our throats as the Keanu Reeves of light bulbs, poised to save us from rolling brownouts and make ugly people beautiful, but they fall short in many ways.
The entry price for LEDs is too high for me to look too seriously and (despite possibly being environmentally friendlier), they're not as energy efficient as the CFLs.
I could swear I read that LEDs were at least three times as efficient as CFLs...Either way, they dim way better, and last way, way longer. I use LED and CFL at home, and the CFL dim noticeably in a fairly short amount of time - a matter of months. And I can throw an LED away in the trash (not that I ever will have to given normal use).
I didn't hear it third hand like you, but I read on Slashdot that Techdirt reported that TorrentFreak noticed and article published by ACS Law blah blah blah.
The Internets are creating circular blog references in order to control our minds.
You realize "I, Robot" was first - by a few decades - a book by Isaac Asimov, right? And the point of the movie was to sell ad time, not teach us anything.
The lack of maturity of the internet allowed Google to offer a better product, virtually sans marketing, and take over. I don't think that can or will happen the same way again. Not in the search market, anyway.
The internet still offers the unique ability for something to go viral and spread like herpes in a co-ed frat, but as time goes on the list will dwindle down to rumors (pop rocks and pepsi!) and worms (conficker, et al).
But it is not about who does it best, but about who markets it best. The Google brand is damn-near ubiquitous, and already encompasses the starting point (i.e., home page) of a large number of internet users. I wish Wolfram luck leaping that hurdle.
"These features really explore search from a broad and entirely new perspective," said Mayer. "Because we realize that when you can't quickly find just the exact information or content you need or want, it's our problem, not yours."
This is an interesting take on the process of searching. In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.
Will Google offer the traditional "colander with wires attached" USB device to read our minds and ignore what we type into the search box? If so, it better be free or people will complain.
You know there's two things I've learned in my nearly 30 years on this earth.
30 years? Hmmm, that's about 0.000000007% of the age of the earth. I'd say you are qualified.
Not that I disagree with you, but let's face it: one other aspect of being human (in addition to your 'evil' conjecture), is that we believe not what the facts bear out but rather what the facts bear out that reinforces what we already believe.
In my almost 37 years I have realized that virtually nothing is 100% provable, and therefore virtually everything is open to some level of interpretation, depending on the interpreter's level of delusion.
No matter what "facts" are released to the public there will be people on both sides of the argument backing up their respective positions, and there will be nothing to convince them otherwise.
MS Office/Excel won't open two files of the same name, and insists on only one working window, forcing the user to "split" in order to compare spreadsheets. OO Calc does both.
OO Writer has a button for generating PDFs sans any Adobe integration.
The advantage to MS Office is that your client is more than likely authoring documents on an MS Office product, and absolute compatibility is not assured. But I don't fault the OO developers for that.
such as brain injury, cerebral palsy, ataxia and other optic nerve damage, lower limb ischemia, autism, spinal muscular atrophy, and multiple sclerosis.
...and cure baldness, eliminate belly fat, treat "ugly," pay off credit cards, clean up oil spills, and repopulate the dodo.
Of course this assume the enemy hackers are not as good as your hackers
You are assuming the network over which it is served in the field is not completely localized. Or that somehow it never occurred to them that the Taliban might have hackers.
For one thing, people already have too many external boxes plugged into the TV...
The answer isn't to add more things to the TV. The answer is to consolidate the boxes outside the TV.
Historically, bundling peripherals into the TV rarely captures more than a niche market. And whatever they put in there will need to be firmware or software update-capable, lest your TV outlive your Flash capabilities.
For starters, you get the "Whoosh" award for being a humorless asshole. Second, had you ever been in an evangelical church - or at least paid attention when you were - they "warned" that the mark of the beast isn't necessarily "666" tattooed on you forehead.
Slashdot Mirror
Bummer...You got the "Old Testament" model.
It is likely that given enough time that would even out, too, though I wouldn't want to be looking for sex in that future.
I have been writing an application where my instinct was to put one form on the page and tell by the button click what was submitted. After getting my knickers in a twist I opted for as many as twenty forms on the page, which actually made sense after I did it. Maybe it depends on the application, but for me each grouping was distinct enough that using a unique form has made maintenance and troubleshooting easier on the front and back end.
As for the IE8 default behavior, I usually use PHP to write common headers to the HTML document, so adding one more line isn't too big a deal. I'm not thrilled MS decided to default to bad behavior, but until they ask for my opinion I'll assume they aren't interested.
There are multiple layers to the answer. Briefly, a basic site will work regardless. Unobtrusive methods of enhancing a site (or Web 2.0ing, if you prefer) can either use minimal hacks or degrade gracefully. Either way, unnecessary markup (the "crazy CSS/image methods" and "nested DIVs") to achieve the desired result is not semantic. Older browsers don't choke on nested DIVs; rather, they choke on the nutty stuff we try to do with them. On the other hand, screen readers or accessibility tools may choke on non-semantic markup.
There are very few required hacks to produce a usable, attractive site in IE6. No, it doesn't play nice when it comes to RIAs, but maybe that's a different problem.
FYI - "Semantic" means that your markup defines your document structure, rather than your markup defining your presentation.
The issue is that it likely won't become any easier to update those 50,000 people (unless massive lay-offs have been planned), and the more revisions/patches/etc. over which the update spans means more regression testing, more time, and even more money.
A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.
Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?
I think there is an overwhelming amount of fear/misinformation among corporate IT and their seeming inability to allow IE6 to die. Fear of the unknown. And maybe a little laziness/love of the status quo.
Two years ago a client of mine (a very large corporation) nearly shit when I set their web site to require 128-bit encryption. Apparently the law of the land forced IE6 and lower encryption for no other reason than it would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard.
Again, the sell of LEDs (or even incandescents) is the way the wear and dim. I have a four-light fixture in my bathroom currently showing four different level of luminosity. No bulb is more than 1.5 years old, and all came out of the same package. They start out giving off bright, white light, but fade steadily such that no two bulbs emit the same if they weren't replaced within a few weeks of each other.
My friend replaced all the bulbs in his house with CFL, and his main complaint is that the recessed ceiling lights have very limited dimming capability. In fact, he changed one room back to incandescent.
CFLs were rammed down our throats as the Keanu Reeves of light bulbs, poised to save us from rolling brownouts and make ugly people beautiful, but they fall short in many ways.
I could swear I read that LEDs were at least three times as efficient as CFLs...Either way, they dim way better, and last way, way longer. I use LED and CFL at home, and the CFL dim noticeably in a fairly short amount of time - a matter of months. And I can throw an LED away in the trash (not that I ever will have to given normal use).
I didn't hear it third hand like you, but I read on Slashdot that Techdirt reported that TorrentFreak noticed and article published by ACS Law blah blah blah.
The Internets are creating circular blog references in order to control our minds.
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=978257&cid=25177277
See also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
Pay me $100,000 per month and I'll dishonestly clap my hands right now.
You realize "I, Robot" was first - by a few decades - a book by Isaac Asimov, right? And the point of the movie was to sell ad time, not teach us anything.
The lack of maturity of the internet allowed Google to offer a better product, virtually sans marketing, and take over. I don't think that can or will happen the same way again. Not in the search market, anyway.
The internet still offers the unique ability for something to go viral and spread like herpes in a co-ed frat, but as time goes on the list will dwindle down to rumors (pop rocks and pepsi!) and worms (conficker, et al).
But it is not about who does it best, but about who markets it best. The Google brand is damn-near ubiquitous, and already encompasses the starting point (i.e., home page) of a large number of internet users. I wish Wolfram luck leaping that hurdle.
This is an interesting take on the process of searching. In the past I thought good searching required training or insight, but this line of thinking - putting the onus on the search provider - is bold and interesting.
Will Google offer the traditional "colander with wires attached" USB device to read our minds and ignore what we type into the search box? If so, it better be free or people will complain.
30 years? Hmmm, that's about 0.000000007% of the age of the earth. I'd say you are qualified.
Not that I disagree with you, but let's face it: one other aspect of being human (in addition to your 'evil' conjecture), is that we believe not what the facts bear out but rather what the facts bear out that reinforces what we already believe.
In my almost 37 years I have realized that virtually nothing is 100% provable, and therefore virtually everything is open to some level of interpretation, depending on the interpreter's level of delusion.
No matter what "facts" are released to the public there will be people on both sides of the argument backing up their respective positions, and there will be nothing to convince them otherwise.
Hey! Enough with the science stuff. Frame your argument within a Star Trek or cartoon reference only, please.
Grammar nazi to the rescue!
MS Office/Excel won't open two files of the same name, and insists on only one working window, forcing the user to "split" in order to compare spreadsheets. OO Calc does both.
OO Writer has a button for generating PDFs sans any Adobe integration.
The advantage to MS Office is that your client is more than likely authoring documents on an MS Office product, and absolute compatibility is not assured. But I don't fault the OO developers for that.
Right. And they are all objective, too.
Yeah, I like this sentence:
...and cure baldness, eliminate belly fat, treat "ugly," pay off credit cards, clean up oil spills, and repopulate the dodo.
You are assuming the network over which it is served in the field is not completely localized. Or that somehow it never occurred to them that the Taliban might have hackers.
You are arm-chair IT managing.
The answer isn't to add more things to the TV. The answer is to consolidate the boxes outside the TV.
Historically, bundling peripherals into the TV rarely captures more than a niche market. And whatever they put in there will need to be firmware or software update-capable, lest your TV outlive your Flash capabilities.
For starters, you get the "Whoosh" award for being a humorless asshole. Second, had you ever been in an evangelical church - or at least paid attention when you were - they "warned" that the mark of the beast isn't necessarily "666" tattooed on you forehead.
Ass.