It should go without saying that the first way is the RightThingToDo?
. But far too often, well-intentioned people do it the second way.
dependency"? Or am I just remembering that article from http://herd.plethora.net/~seebs/ops/ibm/
You must be thinking of BrowserAbuseSyndrome. Should we apply RefactorByMerging?
, you're highly spammable. Just switch it off, then complain to the webmasters who rely on it for core functionality."
I am astonished to discover that http://nasa.gov/
s be enabled in your browser.
For instructions, click here". Usually ".gov" sites are better than average at accessibility.
's ability to create popups - occasionally very useful when writing a web-based UI, but hugely irritating when used to cover your screen in porn when you've accidentally typed in the wrong URL.
THE POWER TO DO ANNOYING THINGS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO!!!
to check that the form is correctly filled in, and even precalculate some of the fields, are probably asking for trouble. Big trouble if the server is relying on the checks, else most likely a violation of OnceAndOnlyOnce
validation can be helpful to the user in reducing the number of round trips that are required, but is utterly undependable as a business rule or security check to the server's application.
as it's seen on the Web today:
You are choosing to view the page, so why don't you use your CPU? This argument makes no sense. Besides, choosing to do it via CGI instead just means you end up using your bandwidth instead of your CPU. Six of one...
- It's used to do things which are useless and/or scary. For example, printing out a message telling the user what browser and OS they are using. It's bad enough if the rest of your webpage design cares in the slightest about that; writing that data back to the user makes it appear as though the FBI is watching or something. Plus, these "script kiddies" never bother to format that data, so it all appears in this one cryptic string. My guess is that this is because they're all employing CopyAndPasteProgramming, and the original version didn't include any formatting because the original author meant it as "just a test".
Seriously. I have seen stuff in page source like
Absolutely zarking ridiculous. -- KarlKnechtel
People who put Javacrapped like that in their pages should be drawn and quartered by extra-large turtles. At least they should lose all their web clients and never be able to foist such an abortion off on the Internet consuming public ever again.
. The script captures mouse events or something so that you cannot select text on the page. I installed JayEdit
(a real pain in InternetExplorer
(easy in MozillaFirefox
). -- ElizabethWiethoff
Don't forget the pages where some nimrod has decided that he doesn't he doesn't want those pesky inter-web pirates
, or even (d) that maybe the user is using the context menu for something that has nothing to do with saving pictures at all, you zarking idiot
What's really ridiculous is when these pages contain the HTML comment <!-- copy protected -->
Luckily for the rest of us, these people all use InternetExplorer, so they don't even know that other browsers now contain an "Allow scripts to disable context menus" preference that can be unchecked.
[Moved from elsewhere]
form validation code is buggy and extremely annoying - often featuring such gems as error dialogs that pop up if you try to move between form fields without filling them in a particular order. Anything that beeps and flashes at me whilst I'm still filling the form in
I instantly class as MalWare
, resulting in a useless website and a deeply frustrated user. The programmer also benefits, because they can use a programming language that they can actually rely
to last a lifetime. -- EarleMartin
What would help would be a development framework that composes both server- and
client-side validation mechanisms from a single
validation specification (which also serves as the definitive statement of what "valid" means for a given datum, independent of implementation); you rely on the server-side validation, but when the client is also validating you still get the time and bandwidth savings.
crashes may deliver bad data. Below is a rough rule-of-thumb summary. -t}
Frequent user error and easy to code: client-side
Infrequent error but involved to code: server-side
Complex code but frequent error: usually server-side, but ItDepends.
Low-volume data entry: server-side. (Not worth bothering with client-side validation. KISS.)
If you cram in a lot of widgets into a page, you risk the equivalent of DllHell
. For example, one widget may use a different version of JQuery than another such that one or the other or both get foobarred because you can only install one version of the library per page. PHB's who keep demanding stuff often trigger such problems.