Rubbish Code, Take II.
Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:42:31 AM
In any case, back on topic, the part that bothered me was this:
Unfortunately, this reflects poorly on Opera
My response is thus:
Bullcookies. It reflects poorly on the overpaid underskilled nimrods who slap together websites using dated and faulty technologies like browser sniffing. Even hinting or blaming the browser is the wrong tack - Instead we need to start sending wakeup calls to developers, or even BETTER their bosses.
Let's examine the code for Bank of America's main page, shall we?
Mediocre fixed width layout flush left, layout uses dynamic fonts inside extra-narrow fixed width containers making the navigation a train wreck on large font/120 dpi systems, and no graceful degredation script off or que's to make it read properly in screen readers. If this was a site in the UK, they'd be facing accessability fines. (LORD we could use those types of laws here in the Colonies)
154k in 17 external javascripts along with at LEAST 30k of internal javascript on a page that by all appearances doesn't do anything that warrants ANY scripting.
124 Validation errors in a transitional doctype - that requires a geniune level of ineptitude the likes of which you'd half suspect Bush administration was behind it, as they do not have HTML, they have gibberish.
Presentational Markup? CHECK!
Presentational images in the markup? CHECK!
Table based layout with no layout elements that warrant a table? CHECK!
Spacer.gif's? CHECK!
Major sections of page CONTENT loaded via DHTML with no graceful degredation for scripting off, CHECK!
Unquoted values on attributes? CHECK!
XHTML style closings in a HTML doctype? CHECK!
Net result? 77k in their served document, another 174k of scripting, 18k of CSS, and a grand total of 42 files all to serve less than 5k of ACTUAL PAGE CONTENT. (which by my estimates looking at the page should be 7-10k of main document, no scripting, 8-12k of CSS, 9-12 files total)
... and this level of ineptitude and stupidity is 100% typical of the majority of banking websites, and commercial websites in general. Given what total RUBBISH the code they output to the user is, one has to really question how bad what's underneath it also is. If their front-end code is any indication of the back-end, it's a miracle the entire online banking system isn't pwned daily by every script kiddie with an ATmega168 on their shoulder.
Take the credit union I use - the login for users bank accounts is served by default on their main page via HTTP, NOT HTTPS!!! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!? I'd be willing to bet I could get into a local gateway somewhere with a code inject and just start sniffing people's login information. THEN of course because I'm an opera user I get the warnings about thier verisign key not only being out of date, but also only being a short key.
The new hotmail is an excellent example as well of Rubbish Code from Alleged professionals. This is a plague that infects 90%+ of major websites as developers continue to take sleazeball shortcuts, load up on 'gee ain't it neat' technologies, load up with buzzword rubbish like "web 2.0" and allowing SEO to be sleazed from a simple step of site coding into a scam based cottage industry. The most annoying part is that it gets worse year after year as new 'Gee ain't it neat' technologies like AJAX start to be ABUSED to do stuff that would be better done the old way. The problem isn't AJAX, it's the abuse of AJAX and throwing it at everything to the point you break normal page navigation and the site doesn't work without it. The problem wasn't tables for layout, it's the abuse of tables by throwing them around every damned element even if you end up with only one TD. The problem isn't FLASH, it's the abuse of flash for navigational and presentational elements instead of leaving it to what it does best, games and videos.
The only reason these inept morons are allowed to keep their jobs is the suits that write their paychecks don't know any better. You know, the types who think you can find good technology advice in Forbes, or that Dreamweaver is a professional grade tool. (As opposed to the people who use it who are the real tools - Thanks Dan!). We need to start flooding THOSE people with error lists like the one above.
Oh, but let's say it makes Opera look bad instead of coming right out and blaming the incompetant dimwits who are REALLY at fault and the rubbish code they pollute the web with.
Of course even daring to point out errors like that, bad sleazeball shortcuts taken by alleged 'experts', the incompetance of others and calling a turd a turd is usually enough to get you singled out for banning by most websites - since at the end of the day in business it always sleazes down to the brown nosing good old boys network, or in social settings the back-slapping everything is good don't you dare say anything negative dirty hippy rubbish that does nothing but perpetuate these types of problems.














Felixclaudeb # Monday, December 22, 2008 10:50:44 AM
Or should I mention the otherwise nice websites that rely on Javascript or Flash just to start displaying something? Instead, they show some scrambled layout boxes, and an idiotic message along the lines of "your browser doesn't support Javascript", when it's Flash they actually want (and yes, I know about SWFobject; talk about too many dependencies). W? T? F? Isn't NoScript the most popular Firefox extension? Heck, even IE blocks scripts by default, since XP SP2 or so.
Sometimes I try telling a developer that when I make a website, testing the html/css/javascript in the good browsers (Opera/FF/Safari) is most often a simple formality. Their reaction? "But you're doing simplistic designs!" Well, DUH! The whole point of the design is to showcase the content; it's not there for the sake of it. Then again, confusing the means and the ends is sooo tipically human...
Jason Knightdeathshadow # Tuesday, December 23, 2008 6:30:06 AM
... and that right there shows that you 'get it' more than most of these art fags who start out 'designing' a page in photoshop. It's why time and time again I call the photoshop > Slice > code approach back-assward as if you do not start with the content, later shoe-horning it into a layout that it may or may not fit - how can you expect to end up with a quality website.
One of the core's to my approach to web design is "CONTENT FIRST!". I take the content of what I want to be on the page, then I format it using minimalist semantic markup - just enough markup to say what it is. I then add a couple standard containers to divide up the content into the appropriate 'subsections' of the site using SEMANTIC classnames (style43 is not a semantic classname), toss in a few sandbags for sliding doors or glider-levin image replacement as needed, then I bend the markup to my will creating the layout in CSS. Then and ONLY then do I start up the goof assed paint program to draw my pretty pictures to hang on the layout.
Same goes for SEO - in terms of a sites code proper semantic markup should pretty much be 'instant SEO' that many would call 'white hat' - anything else done for 'SEO' usually ends up being sleazeball chicanery that sooner or later is likely to get you blacklisted, or takes a site that just pisses off people using searches because there's no actual content of value. Again, I'm aghast at how SEO has been turned from a small but essential part of writing good website code into a separate cottage industry filled with sleazeball scam artists and get rich quick asshattery.
Felixclaudeb # Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:32:01 AM
What would you say about an otherwise smart designer who insists that tables shouldn't be used in a website, as in "never ever". Tried telling him that some data is naturally represented as a table; couldn't get him to understand what I meant (possibly my fault).
How about a SEO enthusiast (not the black-hat sort, thankfully) who insists on having H1/H2 tags on every page, but doesn't see the point of using lists, or having the page content ordered in a logical fashion? Talk about the meaning of 'semantic' being lost on this guy. If you'll excuse the bad pun.
Then again, now that I think of it, the clients may be at fault, too. Often, they don't know what they want from their website, let alone what to put in it, but they want to see something. What's a designer supposed to do in this case? Whipping something up in Photoshop is certainly easier than trying to counsel a haughty manager.
I think a lot of different people need to get some real education about the Web...
Tenno Seremeltenno-seremel # Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:44:55 PM
I'm seeing this very often, since it's my job to make it pixel-perfect… What they actually want is called PDF (-_-)
Nailz # Wednesday, August 5, 2009 10:12:09 AM
Charles EngebretsonChuckaluck # Monday, November 23, 2009 4:56:04 AM
Thanks for letting me in.
Chuck Engebretson