[thesite] comments on test.evolt.org

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Wed Jun 27 17:23:36 CDT 2001


matt,

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: From: Warden, Matt
:
: No. I'm pretty sure we all understand this thing.
: It collapses automagically when the recordcount of
: comments is greater than (or equal to?) 15 and the
: client viewing the page is either IE5 or NN6. All
: other times it's expanded by default, but for some
: reason can be collapsed manually. The state of
: collapse/expand is not stored and all comments are
: downloaded no matter what.
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

well put.  i took it from other people's comments in this thread that they
did not fully understand what was being discussed.  thank you for summing it
up nicely.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: So, we're worried about sending extra bytes of
: code when they're not needed, but not worried
: about sending extra bytes of comments when the
: user isn't going to read them anyways?
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

who said they aren't going to read them?  the toggle isn't so they're not
read -- at least not to me.  the toggle is so you don't have so much in your
face when you first encounter the comments section.  you get a listing of
the titles of the comments and then can choose to expand all and read them
all or just expand those with titles that interest you.

taking that line of reasoning, it wouldn't make much sense to not send the
comments down the pipe as that would drastically increase the amount of
bandwidth necessary to view the site (as well as server load and time to
view the comments).

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: > that sounds like a bug in the browser itself.
:
: So, you're not worried about it?
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no, should i worry myself with a bug in a beta browser?  beta browsers are
beta for a reason -- cause they've still got bugs they're working on and
they're not f*cking ready for public release.  if it was a public release of
a browser then i might be more open to considering it.  even then it'd have
to represent a portion of the audience -- not just "some" browser out there
that someone knows has a bug, but nobody uses.  there are cases where i
simply won't develop for the browser beyond basic html and javascript
because it's too completely broken -- nn4, for example.

there will always be beta browsers out there -- even ones with bugs that
affect things we're working on, have already implemented, or will implement
in the future.  does that mean we shouldn't develop something cause it blows
up in a beta?  i don't think so.  does that mean we should spend extra time
altering the code (and possibly penalizing public release browsers) to get
it to work in the beta and then come back after it's been released and that
bug no longer exists and remove it?  or just leave it in place and have less
than optimal code because of "there was this one day that this one browser
didn't like this code so hacked a solution and haven't bothered to go back
and remove it now that it no longer applies" syndrome?  or am i just
completely crazy for not wanting to waste my time on something like this?

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/






More information about the thesite mailing list