mddw

I am afraid this quote is an urban legend. It never existed.

!important is the only way to force a CSS rule to be more specific than an inline style.

As such, it has legitimates uses in rare cases (a responsive websites with some javascript style changes specific to a breakpoint per exemple.)

I would personally say that what divides good and bad guys is opinionated though.

600€ to 800€ / day (depending on conditions) + VAT, I work in France (not Paris.) Remote only.

Mainly web sites, some webapps, some native apps.

I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but why do you use Facebook comments, displayed in a whooping 11px ?

What ? Of course they should. It's all about choice. There are a shitload of standards and a limited amount of man-hour.

Ahah, the mythical ordinary user.

I know some users. I don't know if they are ordinary. I think they are. My parents in their 50's. A grandmother of 80. Some friends which are 30 with a very average computer literacy.

Every one of them took fast with the iPad (that's how Apple is good), but no one of 'em'll fill 16gb of space.

https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/11-apresenta...

Nice use of Comic Sans in the presentation. Wonder if he paid the licence or used Powerpoint.

Nice post though, I did not know about GendBuntu ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GendBuntu

Which is a (cool but) fake website. I've never seen a redesign keeping HTML code. Even when the code is very good and the separation well done.

Now bootstrap is important, yesterday it was the 360 grid, tomorrow it'll be another hype bandwagon.

First, Bootstrap did not standardize anything. It's a biased perspective to think so : most websites and most developpers don't even know about bootstrap. And those who know about it do not necessarily agree with it (per exemple I hate their JS coding style.)

Second, the myth about "changing your design without touching HTML". Sure, there're some cases where it's possible, but by experience it won't happen. Never. Sadly (or not), a redesign is always coupled with some HTML changes. Bootstrap does not change anything.

So, I think Bootstrap is far less important than, say, Wordpress was. It's a cool tool, useful for a "design dumb" like me to pull a quick demo without a true designer, but in the end it makes boring websites with boring code. It's also a overhyped tool, which won't survive (along with the whole stupid OOCSS thing.)

What is wrong is that I can't zoom on your website. Typos won't scale.

It's really a big accessibility problem. I can't read this article without using the Chrome inspector to change styles.

And I'm far from being visually Impaired.

Sorry, but it must be said.

I would be really curious to know the app vs website usage stats of LinkedIn.

It's awesome, but only useful on very specific animation-heavy projects. Otherwise it's quite overkill.

classList won't work in IE < 10. XHR with promise is quite verbose. Transitions won't work in IE < 10. etc. These were examples, not a complete case list.

What's the point to use shims or polyfills if it means including some others libraries ?

JQuery is not slow. If you .addClass() two hundred divs, sure. But for basic DOM manipulations, it's fine.

JQuery is not heavy. 32kb. It may be in cache. You'll likely gain that twice 32kb by optimizing your png.

This anti-JQuery war is a silly fad started by people who don't make websites.

And as per arguments like "a fadein should not be mandatory blablabla", explain it to the client. It may work. Or it may not.

"I encourage you to give it a shot. Write your next application, library or just code for fun without jQuery. "

Been there, done that. And it's a pain in the *

You'll find yourself needing a method to add or remove classes eficiently. So you'll rewrite .addClass() and .removeClass()

Then you'll need a clean way to make Ajax and callbacks. You'll rewrite .ajax() and .when()

Then you'll need to fade something in all browser. So you'll rewrite .animate()

Ad lib.

JQuery Minified and GZipped is 35k (not 90 as the op said, ignoring the gziping.) JQuery is cached in most browsers. The performance hit is not worth the pain of re-inventing the wheel.

The problem is not JQuery, it's bad code. Bad code won't magically disappear in vanilla JS.

You can't have multiple URL leading to the same information because of SEO. Well, you can (with canonical meta and stuff), but it's not an ideal practice. It is often better to cater to robots rather than to humans. A sad truth, highlighting Google's failures.

For non french speaking people : Xavier Niel is the founder of Free, a major french internet and phone provider, known for kicking hornet nests (he's the "inventor" of low cost unlimited offers, ADSL back in the days, mobile phone very recently.)

42 is a programmer school, totally free of charge, with a "peer to peer" approach to education (whatever it means)

It'll take 4000 students and, after a marathon month (15 hours of programming a day), keeps the 1000 best.

Do you know about : https://heatmap.mozillalabs.com/ ?

The back button is heavily used, even without gestures/mouse.

I feel always a little lost when I read tutorials which use SASSy/LESSy CSS. Illustrating exemples with a preprocessor means lots of web developers won't be able to read you.

Moreover these developers are not in the hype bandwagon (or they would be able to read SASSy/LESSy/whatever fashionable now), so they may need the most the said tutorials.

These learning websites never work for me. I know starting with basics (operations, variables, string manipulation) is the sensible thing to do, but they bore me. I always find easier (well, harder but more engaging) to read real code running a real simple application and trying to figure it out by breaking it. (it's not a critic of learning sites or this one in particular. It's just they don't speak to me.)

If you want to do freelance work, learning PHP (or ASP) is mandatory. Sure, Ruby is great, but you'll keep stumbling on :

"our shared host is PHP only, we don't want to change for another" "we want wordpress" "our computer guys know a little PHP, we need PHP" "what the fuck is Ruby ?"

So you'll try to educate your client, to explain why Ruby us great. But you'll fail, because most clients don't give a shit and, for their very basic needs, PHP is as good as ruby.

As usual, nothing on cross-browser compatibility (respond.js, modernizr...), nothing on speed optimisation (a real problem in RWD), on backends issues (regarding the multiples images needed), etc...

It often strikes me, reading these tutorials about RWD, than the authors know all very well the theory but have never done a real (ie for a client) responsive website in their life.

It's all generic and general stuff, never how a stupid menu can be a real bother when you have to support two different states, touch and mouse, users without javascript, changing states, IE9 with no CSS3 transition support, etc.

Tutorials show you the easy way, the way which works only for cable users with a fancy Macbook and the last Safari or 4G iPhone users.

In real RWD, what should be easy becomes hard, and nobody'll tell you that.

(btw, i'm not a RWD hater. I just want to warn about its realities.)

It would be interesting to know the most used font on old gen Kindles (which have only three choices : serif, serif condensed and sans-serif.)

"Let's hinder 98% of our visitors to please the 2% with retina screen !"

Seriously, developing for multiple density is hard in the real world. Way harder then this article says.

Of course you can. Here are the instructions on the free website : http://www.free.fr/assistance/2253-avec-un-modem-adsl.html

It's neutral : the filtering is at the router level, which belong to the user network.

Of course you can. You can even use your own router.

I'm very surprised Paul Irish veted this article.

It's far from "all" you need to know about transitions (delay, quirks of 3D transform regarding backface visibility...)

Moreover it's quite weak on cross-browser compatibility and performance.

The numbers that matter are your websites' numbers and no others.

I had to make a website for a brand with strong sales in China. The client asked for a full IE6 support "because chinese use IE6 according to X and Y." IE6 support is expensive.

I was quite doubtful, the brand is a luxury one, kinda confidential, so the user had to belong to the new rich class which can afford a real computer. But they did not have any data and did not want me to gather data on their actual website to confirm or infirm my hypothesis.

The IE6 friendly website lauched. The stats reports less than 4% IE7 and less usage (including funny browser derived from IE.)

The McDonalds affair was not a Cybernetic Hate Crime.

This article seeks solutions to non-existent problems.