Comments on: Introducing the Lab http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/ Kick-start your web development Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:32:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Jurgen Posselt http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/#comment-3944 Jurgen Posselt Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:01:59 +0000 http://devkick.com/blog/?p=15#comment-3944 I just discovered your web site yesterday and in a nutshell, you guys have restored my faith in the internet. How long have you been around? KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. I love this site !! I just discovered your web site yesterday and in a nutshell, you guys have restored my faith in the internet. How long have you been around? KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. I love this site !!

]]> By: David http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/#comment-53 David Tue, 06 May 2008 10:52:19 +0000 http://devkick.com/blog/?p=15#comment-53 @Eugene: You raise a valid point, but it does not necessarily rule out :path. :path does not tell you how to style your active or current links, it's just a front-end alternative that pulls active hrefs automatically. Nielsen recommends that you should not have a link that points to the current page, just as you say, that's why :path comes bundled with :current. This example replaces the anchor that points to the current page with it's containing text (thus removing the anchor): $('ul a:current').each(function() { $(this).replaceWith($(this).text()); }); @Eugene: You raise a valid point, but it does not necessarily rule out :path. :path does not tell you how to style your active or current links, it’s just a front-end alternative that pulls active hrefs automatically. Nielsen recommends that you should not have a link that points to the current page, just as you say, that’s why :path comes bundled with :current. This example replaces the anchor that points to the current page with it’s containing text (thus removing the anchor):

$(’ul a:current’).each(function() {
$(this).replaceWith($(this).text());
});

]]> By: Eugene Efimochkin http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/#comment-52 Eugene Efimochkin Tue, 06 May 2008 10:36:58 +0000 http://devkick.com/blog/?p=15#comment-52 OK guys, :path is nice but there's a great problem there. I dealed with it once I was hired to my current job (http://www.itech-design.ru). The problem is that you make a link _look_ like it is not a link, when it obviously _is_ a link. It even acts like a link (and if you prohibit it's default behaviour with script you are going one step more the wrong path). My rule of thumb for visual states and links is: when you don't need a link, don't make it. That's it. You see, we use server-side page generators most of the time, hence we _can_ remove the <a></a> garments each time we don't need a link (performance is the question -- but it always was dealable anyway). It is possible nowadays. When we create static pages - why not think a bit and find a way to develop a template based site that doesn't have links where we don't need them? It is also possible with modern tools (damn, it is even MORE possible when we use just Notepad)! Here in ITECH.group we don't use such tricky JavaScript «link tortures» for at aleast a year (just since the moment I was hired), you can check our portfolio. When we don't need a link - we don't put it. OK guys, :path is nice but there’s a great problem there. I dealed with it once I was hired to my current job (http://www.itech-design.ru). The problem is that you make a link _look_ like it is not a link, when it obviously _is_ a link. It even acts like a link (and if you prohibit it’s default behaviour with script you are going one step more the wrong path). My rule of thumb for visual states and links is: when you don’t need a link, don’t make it. That’s it. You see, we use server-side page generators most of the time, hence we _can_ remove the <a></a> garments each time we don’t need a link (performance is the question — but it always was dealable anyway). It is possible nowadays.

When we create static pages - why not think a bit and find a way to develop a template based site that doesn’t have links where we don’t need them? It is also possible with modern tools (damn, it is even MORE possible when we use just Notepad)!

Here in ITECH.group we don’t use such tricky JavaScript «link tortures» for at aleast a year (just since the moment I was hired), you can check our portfolio. When we don’t need a link - we don’t put it.

]]> By: admin http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/#comment-33 admin Sat, 03 May 2008 13:45:30 +0000 http://devkick.com/blog/?p=15#comment-33 @Wes: Have a look at our latest post http://devkick.com/blog/the-visual-active-state-popular-techniques-and-examples/ It explains some of the pros and cons. I prefer the jQuery route myself. @Wes: Have a look at our latest post http://devkick.com/blog/the-visual-active-state-popular-techniques-and-examples/

It explains some of the pros and cons. I prefer the jQuery route myself.

]]> By: Wes http://devkick.com/blog/introducing-the-lab/#comment-23 Wes Thu, 01 May 2008 15:33:45 +0000 http://devkick.com/blog/?p=15#comment-23 Seems like a great tool. I guess my only question is what is wrong with the method of body id's and navigation element id's? Using jQuery some people might miss out on the styling. For instance: Home About .... CSS: body#index #nav_index, body#about #nav_about { /* active nav info */ } Seems like a great tool. I guess my only question is what is wrong with the method of body id’s and navigation element id’s? Using jQuery some people might miss out on the styling.

For instance:

Home
About

….

CSS:
body#index #nav_index, body#about #nav_about { /* active nav info */ }

]]>