JTF: Javascript Unit Testing Farm

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by acemtp@gmail.com, Mar 30, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hello,

    I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
    programmer.

    It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
    all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
    install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
    unit tests.

    On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
    tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
    able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
    reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.

    I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.

    http://jtf.ploki.info
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roman Ziak Guest

    wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
    > programmer.
    >
    > It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
    > all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
    > install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
    > unit tests.
    >
    > On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
    > tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
    > able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
    > reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.
    >
    > I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.
    >
    > http://jtf.ploki.info


    This is an interesting project.

    I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
    site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
    more attention.

    This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
    could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
    their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
    their scripts tested by their visitors.

    I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
    provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
    to the site without their explicit agreement.
    Roman Ziak, Mar 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
    I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have
    the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
    the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
    is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
    these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
    purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
    Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
    has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
    Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
    communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
    Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
    Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
    marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.
    , Mar 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Evertjan. Guest

    wrote on 30 mrt 2006 in comp.lang.javascript:

    > Thanks for the offer ....


    Please quote what you are replying to.

    If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the
    "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the
    top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article
    headers. <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
    Evertjan., Mar 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    <Hello,

    I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
    programmer.


    It's quite hard to know if some specific code you wrote will work on
    all browsers, and if not, why it doesn't work. You often have to
    install lot of browsers on your computer, buy a mac or a pc, and make
    unit tests.


    On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
    tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
    able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
    reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.


    I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.


    http://jtf.ploki.info >


    The offer, as quoted from the original post.

    My reply:
    Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+. My logic is simple.
    I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have

    the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
    the money to buy my products. Additionally, the Windows software that
    is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
    these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
    purposes. They are fast and efficient. The W3C standard used by
    Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic. Adhering to the W3C standards
    has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
    Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
    communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.
    Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
    Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
    marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Zif Guest

    said on 31/03/2006:
    [...]
    > My reply:


    Is this a serious statement or just a troll?


    > Thanks for the offer, but I only write for IE 5+.


    Worse, you write only for IE 5+ on Windows.


    > My logic is simple.
    > I sell continuing education products online. If a person does not have
    >
    > the money to buy a decent browser and OS then they probably don't have
    > the money to buy my products.


    What an arrogant attitude.

    If you can't be bothered to invest in your own continuing education and
    learn to write decent web pages, why should anyone think your products
    are worth paying for?

    You are clearly ignorant of web standards, what does that say of your
    ability to learn, understand and teach about other matters?


    > Additionally, the Windows software that
    > is compatible with IE5+ includes PowerPoint and Frontpage. I use both
    > these products extensively to develop high volume pages for training
    > purposes.


    PowerPoint runs on other platforms, including ones that aren't even PCs.
    FrontPage can make web pages that run on any browser, it is your
    choice to make them run only in IE on Windows.


    > They are fast and efficient.


    FrontPage is one of the most criticised pieces of software that
    Microsoft has ever produced. It is slow, buggy and creates genuinely
    bad pages. That you consider it 'fast and efficient' is a hint as to
    your ability to determine what is good software. And a reflection of
    the quality of the products you sell.

    I have never heard anyone characterise PowerPoint as 'fast and
    efficient'. Ever.


    > The W3C standard used by
    > Netscape, Opera, and FireFox are basic.


    The same standards Microsoft (mostly) adheres to? The ones that
    Microsoft even helps to define?


    > Adhering to the W3C standards
    > has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
    > Products.


    That is truly laughable. Microsoft has not updated the functionality of
    IE in nearly 6 years and it will be another 12 months before they do.
    You clearly haven't investigated the extensions available in other browsers.


    > W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
    > communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.


    Yeah, I think you're a troll. So capitalism eschews standards, right?
    I suppose absolutely nothing in a capitalist society is controlled by
    any sort of standard, after all, they are such a communist concept.

    Those pinko bastards a the W3C - who the heck are they? Here they are;

    <URL:http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List>

    A few of turncoats: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, AT&T, Yahoo, Google, Sun...


    > Adding the price to produce pages compatible with Netscape, Opera, and
    > Firefox and the W3C standard to my production budget is not a good
    > marketing decision and therefore should be avoided.


    Oh, somebody stop me! You want others to spend money to buy a PC and
    software so they can use your products when you are too lousy to invest
    a small amount of time and effort to make your products standards compliant?

    I guess you don't see the hypocrisy.



    --
    Zif
    Zif, Mar 31, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Roman Ziak wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Hello,
    > >
    > > I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
    > > programmer.
    > >
    > > http://jtf.ploki.info

    >
    > This is an interesting project.


    Thank you.

    > I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
    > site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
    > more attention.


    That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
    task using timers and iframes.

    > This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
    > could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
    > their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
    > their scripts tested by their visitors.


    I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
    background tests to his website.

    > I just wonder if there is a legal implication of this, because the
    > provider would be using the visitor's browser for purposes not related
    > to the site without their explicit agreement.


    That's a good question and I don't have the answer. But just take a
    look at google analytics that get all information about visitors
    (screen resolution, java, domain, geo location, languages...).
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    wrote:
    > On JTF (Javascript Unit Testing Farm), you can write javascript unit
    > tests that will be executed on all browsers, automatically. You'll be
    > able to post comment, rate scripts and, of course, you'll be able to
    > reuse, modify and increase the compatibility of current scripts.
    >
    > I hope you'll like and you'll find this site useful.
    >
    > http://jtf.ploki.info


    An excellent idea. I've been trying to think about a good solution to
    something like this before. It also has the capability of becoming a
    resource for high quality tested library code.

    I have a number of suggestions for improvements :

    1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests
    from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions (ie History) of
    the tested code. Doing this would make it easier to test newer
    versions of the tested code, and tie into the existing unit tests.
    Ideally each version of the tested code would be run against the tests.
    **

    2. Could there be an RSS or mail feed to notify users of failures?

    3. A bit more documentation on the mechanics of it all. For example :

    a. what happens if my script throws an exception and its not caught?

    b. does my script continue after a failed assertion?

    i.e.

    assertTrue(0);
    log("message"); // will this get logged?

    c. what environment does the html fragment 'sit' in? it looks like an
    iframe, but it would be nice if it were possible to access the source
    for it, and have that documented somewhere?

    d. when is my script run? After the document has loaded? Or should my
    script include attachEvent (or whatever) code if I want to rely on the
    html being fully loaded?

    4. It would be nice if the "Test Script" button actually ran the script
    rather than just doing some sanity checking on it.

    5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
    them? That would match JSUnit better I think. The following code does
    that (someone correct me _when_ I'm wrong :) )

    for (var name in window)
    {
    if (typeof(window[name]) == "function" && name.indexOf('test') ==
    0)
    {
    window[name]();
    }
    }


    Sorry if this seems overly critical, its not meant to be, as I think
    its a fantastic idea :)

    Sam


    ** I can see this is quite a big feature request! But I think its an
    important one.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest


    > http://jtf.ploki.info


    regarding test_stringToDate, and the comment :

    """
    * Posted by acemtp the 2006-03-31 13:10:14 Rated 1 stars. Marked as not
    working script
    I disable the script for now because your log is too big (15kb). I
    have to find a way to send bigger log and please find a way to send
    less log :)
    """

    I understand now what the submit page meant by the log is limited to
    200 characters. I didn't realise that testing an assertion added to
    the log.

    I don't really see how I can send less log, except by removing the
    tests :) There are only 64 assertions made, which I don't think is
    unusual for testing boundary cases on a function like that, (To be
    honest its not really enough, there are a whole slew of test cases that
    should be added)

    I guess the simplest thing would be to only log on a failure, at the
    moment pass or fail the log is sent to the server. Which is I think
    fairly normal for many unit testing frameworks. You don't really need
    confirmation of every test that passed, just a count of how many tests
    passed and which ones failed.

    I think the 200 character limit will have to be solved at some point,
    the other alternative is to use POST the data rather than use a GET
    request.

    Sam
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #9
  10. Roman Ziak Guest

    wrote:
    > Roman Ziak wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > > Hello,
    > > >
    > > > I would like to show you a new collaborative website for javascript
    > > > programmer.
    > > >
    > > > http://jtf.ploki.info

    > >
    > > I have one suggestion - run one test everytime a visitor enters your
    > > site. This way there will not be discrimination from scripts receving
    > > more attention.

    >
    > That's what it's happen already. test cases are running in background
    > task using timers and iframes.
    >


    Ok then. I thought the particular script is being tested only when user
    goes to check on its details.

    > > This could be also deployed in the background of busy site. Maybe you
    > > could consider making it a package. Developers would just insert it on
    > > their website either into onload event or into interval timer to get
    > > their scripts tested by their visitors.

    >
    > I thought about that but I don't really think that anyone will add
    > background tests to his website.


    Here is another idea:

    Deploy a server side servise, where users will be able to stuff small
    JS codes into the database. Then participating websites will be able to
    add to their HTML:

    <script
    src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTesting.php?uid=1236"></script>

    When I setup an account on your farm, I would like to be able to upload
    my scripts for testing and review results. The site moderator and
    appointed users could review the submitted scripts before they would be
    sent for their first test (untrusted script on trusted site issue).

    I have a small site with some ~200 unique visitors a day and growing
    and I would sign-up if project was executed properly and there was some
    guarantee that those scripts will execute invisibly for my visitors.

    Roman
    Roman Ziak, Mar 31, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    > http://jtf.ploki.info

    Wow, your comments are invaluable to me. I don't want to spam the NG so
    I make only one post with all answers:

    Sam, I added a FAQ and TODO page with all your questions!

    > 1. It would be nice if there were an easy way to separate the tests

    from the code being tested, and allow multiple versions.

    I'll think about it.

    > 5. Could the launcher search for all functions called test???? and run
    > them? That would match JSUnit better I think.


    It's true, it's not really like JSUnit but I would like to keep the
    system really simple, you put your html, your JS and voila, no need to
    add function or what ever. If you split your test in more than one
    function in JSUnit, on JTF you'll need to create 2 test cases to
    separate them. a JTF test case is 1 function -> 1 set of test for this
    function. it's one to one.

    > I think the 200 character limit will have to be solved at some point,
    > the other alternative is to use POST the data rather than use a GET
    > request.


    It's a technical limit and I'll have to find a way to resolve it, I
    cannot just change Get into Post :) It's a quite more complex.

    > When I setup an account on your farm, I would like to be able to upload
    > my scripts for testing and review results. The site moderator and
    > appointed users could review the submitted scripts before they would be
    > sent for their first test (untrusted script on trusted site issue).


    I tried to use the same philosophy as wiki, no moderators, no accounts,
    everybody can post a test case without registration process or
    whatever. Everybody can disable a test case if he thinks it's
    dangerous. I try to follow the KISS rule :)

    > <script src="http://jtf.ploki.info/getScriptForTesting.php?uid=1236"></script>


    I thought about something like that but I was wondering if somebody
    will really add it to it's website. If some people are really ready to
    add that on there website, it could be really nice.

    The bad thing with that is that it will not be collaborative anymore,
    only your test cases will be tested or we have to select a sub-set of
    trusted script... I'll think about it.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    <Oh, somebody stop me! You want others to spend money to buy a PC and
    software so they can use your products when you are too lousy to invest

    a small amount of time and effort to make your products standards
    compliant?

    I guess you don't see the hypocrisy. >


    There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
    to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
    compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
    the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
    W3C is out on the limb, I would say.

    FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
    330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
    day I did 23 illustrated pages. PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
    package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
    output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
    edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
    done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
    PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
    debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
    design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.
    FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
    similar.
    I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
    last ten years and in my humble opinion these software packages are
    unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
    output verses time.

    I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
    like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
    Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
    products anyway. It takes a major amount of time to maintain
    compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.
    If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
    garage. It is all about marketing.
    , Mar 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    wrote:

    > If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
    > garage. It is all about marketing.


    Bill Gates never worked out of a garage. In fact, he built his company
    on standards compliance. Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they
    actualy did work out of a garage and established their own standard. I
    think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
    probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
    what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".

    Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
    it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
    of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
    home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
    would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.

    Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
    their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
    It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
    reliance on Active X. IE is free and Windows comes with the machine
    you buy so I'm not sure what you mean by your "afford to buy my
    products" argument. IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you
    ought to be more concerned about whether your pages conform. Unless
    IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.

    Bob Gulian
    , Apr 1, 2006
    #13
  14. Randy Webb Guest

    said the following on 4/1/2006 10:58 AM:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
    >> garage. It is all about marketing.

    >
    > Bill Gates never worked out of a garage.


    Directly, true. Paul Allen did most of the garage work.

    > In fact, he built his company on standards compliance.


    Now that is plain ludicrous. Unless the "standards" you are referring to
    are/were his own personal standards.

    > Now the other guys, Jobs and Wozniak, they actualy did work out of
    > a garage and established their own standard.


    And so did Bill Gates.

    > I think they have 5% of the worldwide personal computer market now,
    > probably less in the US. Although I admire what they did far more than
    > what Gates did, I have to admit that they "lost".


    If they lost, why does Gates own part of that "loser company"?

    BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

    > Now when you say 95% of users comply with the Microsoft standard, when
    > it comes to browsers, I doubt that is true. It is fair to say that 95%
    > of corporate/business users use IE 5+ but I'm sure that is not true of
    > home users. And of the client-side web applications that they use, I
    > would bet that less than 50% of them are only tested with IE.


    It is even more true of home users. They buy a PC, it has Windows and IE
    on it. Most web users don't even know that there are 2 browsers
    available much less the 150 or so that are actually available for just
    Windows.

    > Having said that, the company I work for only tests with IE and tells
    > their users upfront to turn back if they are using another browser.
    > It makes me very nervous to develop for them, especially in their
    > reliance on Active X.


    Why? If a corporation wants to shoot themselves in the foot then let
    them. Hell, load the gun for them.

    > IE is free and Windows comes with the machine you buy so I'm not sure
    > what you mean by your "afford to buy my products" argument.


    And that is why 99% of Windows users use IE as the default browser. It's
    free, it was there, they had no reason to go download another.

    > IE 7 moves so close to the W3c standard that you ought to be more
    > concerned about whether your pages conform.


    <sarcasm>
    Oh? My copy handles XHMTL so close to the W3C standards that I thought I
    was using Mozilla for a moment
    </sarcasm>

    > Unless IE7 will be another "banned" browser in your ever shrinking world.


    If we could only be so lucky :)

    --
    Randy
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
    Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
    Randy Webb, Apr 1, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    Go to www.electrician.com to see the monster this experienced designer
    (10000 pages) has created. You may be pleased to hear that website
    almost the same in Firefox as it does in IE, unfortunately its
    disgusting in both.

    I recommend everyone visit his site to judge his skills in web design
    and marketing.

    I have never and will never judge a website on standards compliance. I
    judge on content, usability, readability, marketing skill and visual
    appeance (Not necessarily in this order)

    What I assume is your site (www.electrician.com) is fails miserably on
    all of these test, I humbly apologise for my rude message if this is
    not your site. Before I trash the incompentent fool who designed this
    site please let me point out a few flaws in your logic.

    > There is no hypocrisy. I only have so much time to invest. Contrary
    > to what you say it takes a great deal of time to maintain "standards
    > compliant "pages, time that is a waste of time in my opinion. Who is
    > the standard bearer when 95 percent of the users comply with Microsoft?
    > W3C is out on the limb, I would say.


    In that case I look forward to your explaination why Microsoft is
    boasting about their efforts to acheive W3C compliance and apologising
    for not fully acheiving their aim, Microsoft do not share your opinions
    about W3C and standards.

    They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards, and
    they don't need to - their market share makes it unneccessary , but
    they have improved on their last attempt because it is in their
    commercial and technical interest to do so.

    These are quotes from a developer on the IE7 project

    "We fully recognize that IE is behind the game today in CSS support",
    "we know Beta 1 makes little progress for web developers in improving
    our standards support, particularly in our CSS implementation. I feel
    badly about this.."

    "In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit
    as we can"

    The IE developers at Microsoft disagree with you troll boy.

    >
    > FrontPage and PowerPoint work very well for me. I have produced about
    > 330 illustrations in 2 months for my code change course. On my best
    > day I did 23 illustrated pages.


    If your site is anything to go by it was 23 pages of nasty looking
    crap.

    >PowerPoint has an excellent graphics
    > package that allows me to maintain production at about triple the
    > output per time using a combination of software packages such as ultra
    > edit, adobe illustrator, paint shop pro and Netscape Composer. I have
    > done it both ways for about 10 years and believe me FrontPage and
    > PowerPoint are the way to go. FrontPage is excellent. The JavaScript
    > debugger works fine and you can switch back and forth between script,
    > design, preview, and a split screen with a click of a button.


    Standard features for a web development/design suite!

    My preferred choice is Dreamweaver and paint shop pro but that is only
    my subjective personal opinion.

    Your productivity has little to do with the program itself and has more
    to do with the fact that once you know a program well, eg the shortcuts
    and toolbars, you can work at a greater speed than if you try out a
    different program with similar functionality

    > FrontPage has the same drawing objects as PowerPoint and is very
    > similar.


    Again most web design/develoment suites provide these feature, both
    Macromedia and Adobe have products which do this. But as you are
    experienced with Microsoft products then of course it is best you stick
    to what you know best.

    > I have been there and back building about 10,000 web pages over the
    > last ten years


    10,000 crap web pages makes you a shit web designer

    >And in my humble opinion these software packages are
    > unequaled for production verses time. And that is the key element -
    > output verses time.


    The products are maythe best for you but they are not the best for
    everyone.

    I am most productive with Dreamweaver, Paint Shop Pro and Crimson
    Editor.

    For me it is much much quicker and easier to use these.

    If I had to use the software you promote my productivity would drop
    dramatically at first then over time it would increase as I learned my
    way round the programs. If you changed to the ones I use the same would
    happen, the productivity-time factor is not inherent to the programs it
    is you experience in using them that makes you fastest with them. Get
    the point yet?? Are you so stupid that you could not work this out for
    yourself?

    > I don't really worry about the other browsers other than IE5+ because
    > like I said before, I sell a product and if a person can't afford
    > Windows XP and IE5.0+ then they probably are not going to buy the
    > products anyway.


    A 2.3Ghz Mac running safari costs more than most 2.3Ghz pc running
    windows. They won't buy your product because your amatuerish web site
    has the same effect as a smelly fart in a enclosed space.

    > It takes a major amount of time to maintain
    > compatibility to the so called W3C standards, time which I do not have.


    Developing a standards compliant page doesnt take much more time or
    money than developing an non standard compliant page.

    However if you have a large poorly written website like your which is
    in urgent need of redeveloping from scratch (like yours) that is a
    different matter.

    > If Bill Gates thought like you, he would still be working out of a
    > garage. It is all about marketing.


    But your site (www.electrician.com) does not display any knack for
    marketing OR web design!!! And you are selling your domain name for
    funds. What does that sauy about your marketing skill.

    Your site fails every marketing test I know, the poorly written
    content, a large course table which has a cell three words wide and 11
    lines high. Did you intend to make your priice list unreadable??

    This is not marketing!

    The shocking layout and your habit of using links which contain 30+
    words and covering three lines of the screen makes the content hard to
    read and unattractive.

    Don't worry though, your site is so ugly most people wont even bother
    getting to the end of the page where you hid them.

    And you put a link with your welcome message at the bottom of the
    page!!! Where would you put your welcome doormat? In the attic?

    I suggest you get a basic graphic/web design book and learn some of
    basics of typography and layout before you claim to be a experienced
    designer of 10,000 pages.

    In summary your site looks so amatuerish it will deter most client who
    can afford to buy your product so I am not surprised you are selling
    the www.electrian.com domain name to raise funds.
    , Apr 1, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    >Adhering to the W3C standards
    > has kept these browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft
    > Products. W3C is behind the times and actually works a little like
    > communism by trying to keep everyone at the same obsolete level.


    Here's the link to the IE blog where the programmers of IE make
    trollboy look like a clueless fool

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

    Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
    in IE"

    The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

    "Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
    expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
    CSS and HTML."

    "When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

    "t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
    times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
    back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
    mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
    support."

    "t times we have taken a leading role in standards support - and at
    times we have not. When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows
    back in 1996, we had the first CSS implementation out there in a
    mass-market web browser. (I personally wrote the code for that
    support."

    Shut up Gerald, you're deluded and wrong
    , Apr 1, 2006
    #16
  17. In message <>, Randy Webb
    <> writes
    >BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.


    Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
    etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
    Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
    giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not
    invent.

    Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
    is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
    Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.

    You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
    inspiration from someone else. And in case you want to sight the iPod as
    a stroke of genius, sorry, but that is just an evolution of the original
    insight that gave rise to the Sony Walkman (the first portable music
    player).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Engelbart
    http://www.bootstrap.org/

    Stephen
    --
    Stephen Kellett
    Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
    Computer Consultancy, Software Development
    Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting
    Stephen Kellett, Apr 1, 2006
    #17
  18. wrote:

    > Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
    > in IE"


    YMMD.

    > The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details


    The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
    native object in IE 7.

    > "Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
    > expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
    > CSS and HTML."
    >
    > "When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"


    But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
    Suite.


    PointedEars
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Apr 2, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Read The Fucking Message you pointyeared freak

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Heres some quotes from "the lead program manager for the web platform
    > > in IE"

    >
    > YMMD.
    >
    > > The developers of IE disagree with your idiotic statements in details

    >
    > The developers of IE say much. They also said XMLHttpRequest would be a
    > native object in IE 7.


    Looks like they kept their word this time klingonboy

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/01/23/516393.aspx

    >
    > > "Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
    > > expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
    > > CSS and HTML."
    > >
    > > "When we shipped IE 6.0, we finally fully supported CSS 1"

    >
    > But they do not. This can be easily proven by trying the W3C CSS 1 Test
    > Suite.
    >
    >
    > PointedEars


    we all know they dont, do you always miss the point like that?

    if you read what i actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote you
    will see i said about microsoft "boasting about their efforts" as well
    as "They do not and probably will never fully implement W3c standards"

    I included microsoft marketing shite because the electrician's
    ridiculous claim was "Adhering to the W3C standards has kept these
    browsers from advancing to the level of Microsoft Products"

    try harder thomas
    , Apr 2, 2006
    #19
  20. RobG Guest

    Stephen Kellett wrote:
    > In message <>, Randy Webb
    > <> writes
    >
    >> BTW, the basis for Windows was stolen from Steve Jobs by Bill Gates.

    >
    >
    > Excuse me? You mean a windowing system, bitmap graphics, icons, mouse,
    > etc? - Apple from Xerox and Xerox on the back of work by Douglas
    > Englebart, founder of the foresight institute. I really do hate people
    > giving Apple (or anyone else) the credit for something they did not invent.


    Hell, let's get way OT!

    You're right, Jobs didn't invent the GUI, mouse or OO programming. He
    freely admits that he got the idea from Xerox, they freely admit to giving
    him the idea royalty free (much to the chagrin of Xerox researchers).

    Gates saw the same stuff 'cos he was developing for Mac OS at the time -
    Word and Excel became the packages they are off the back of the Mac GUI,
    not Windows. Microsoft didn't have a windows-based GUI to develop or
    deliver them on.

    As for standards compliance, I think Macs have always been far more
    standards compliant than PCs. The difference was that the PC world went
    for cheap and nasty - ISA, EISA, MS-DOS, parallel, serial, etc. whereas
    Macs used SCSI, NuBus, Postscript, etc. Standardisation in the PC world is
    based on the original IBM clones - essentially a very basic architecture
    stolen from IBM.

    Remember when to add anything to a PC you had to add a card? Sound, colour,
    heck even graphics usually needed another card stuck in somewhere. And
    mice? Sheesh, how many PCs still use PS2 connectors for mice?

    > Mr Englebart demonstrated bitmapped graphics and a mouse in 1967. There
    > is black and white video footage to prove it too. Time you start
    > Googling for the Bootstrap Institute.
    >
    > You may dislike Mr Gates, but don't assume Mr Jobs didn't get his
    > inspiration from someone else.


    The genius of Mac OS is the GUI paradigm established by the original
    programming team. The 'look and feel' they created still hasn't been
    bettered and has been implemented in just about every GUI since.


    --
    Rob
    RobG, Apr 2, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Maclean
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    327
    Martin P. Hellwig
    Apr 13, 2010
  2. Ulrich Eckhardt

    unit-profiling, similar to unit-testing

    Ulrich Eckhardt, Nov 16, 2011, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    312
    Roy Smith
    Nov 18, 2011
  3. Bill Mosteller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    202
    Bill Mosteller
    Oct 22, 2009
  4. Avi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    472
  5. Avi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    451
Loading...

Share This Page