H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Oct 6, 2017 02:56 PM UTC:
To be precise, code should be measured in bytes, not lines. My JavaScript for the menu takes up 7474 bytes, while your betza.js file takes up 57,438 bytes. Your comment with the Golden Age Chess diagram adds 1237 bytes.
But the point is that it is almost never loaded, because when you have seen one diagram, you have seen them all: the browser caches the file, and keeps it around for a long time, probably forever as long as you regularly view diagrams (or until you decide to flush the browser cache for the page). If someone views 10 pages and has to load the menu script in each page, you are already up to 74,740 bytes. Load 20 pages per day for a week and you are at a megabyte.
The HTML description of the menus is also quite large, and could probably easily be generated by a JavaScript program (residing in a separate file shared by all pages). Or, when you don't want to rely on JavaScript, by including it from a separate URL through an <object> tag.
That is a completely disingenuous analogy. I was explaining why there was no more room for the banner ad when there appeared to be more room for it.
The analogy is about how this misses the point. The question is not about the cause, but about the reason. Why do you want to waste space on the page when there is no compelling need for it?
That is a matter of personal preference, not of morality. Do not imagine that every personal preference of yours carries the weight of morality.
That is just nitpicking over whether the use of the word 'wrong' is correct, against a non-native English speaker. Of course I do not mean that it is immoral or criminal to do this. Just that it is ugly, and an embarresment for the site.
Who would die if you had to scroll the screen? Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
Well, so what would happen that you want to avoid by forcing the banner in the center, that is so important than it takes priority over wasting vertical space on a page that doesn't fit entirely on the screen?
So what? Argumentum ad populum doesn't work with me.
Well, that seems to be part of the problem, then. Because very often there is a good reason why people do things in a certain way, and not in another. IMO it never hurts looking around to see what 'state-of-the-art' websites look like.
But to not digress from the actual issue: do you want to maintain that this staggered header design is just what you intend, better than any possible alternative and more usual design? If so, it raises questions about the status of this website: should it be considered an expressionist work of art, that people can admire or puke over according to how well their sense of aesthetics agrees with that of the artist, or is it supposed to service the chess-variant community in the best possible way.
But the point is that it is almost never loaded, because when you have seen one diagram, you have seen them all: the browser caches the file, and keeps it around for a long time, probably forever as long as you regularly view diagrams (or until you decide to flush the browser cache for the page). If someone views 10 pages and has to load the menu script in each page, you are already up to 74,740 bytes. Load 20 pages per day for a week and you are at a megabyte.
The HTML description of the menus is also quite large, and could probably easily be generated by a JavaScript program (residing in a separate file shared by all pages). Or, when you don't want to rely on JavaScript, by including it from a separate URL through an <object> tag.
The analogy is about how this misses the point. The question is not about the cause, but about the reason. Why do you want to waste space on the page when there is no compelling need for it?
That is just nitpicking over whether the use of the word 'wrong' is correct, against a non-native English speaker. Of course I do not mean that it is immoral or criminal to do this. Just that it is ugly, and an embarresment for the site.
Well, so what would happen that you want to avoid by forcing the banner in the center, that is so important than it takes priority over wasting vertical space on a page that doesn't fit entirely on the screen?
Well, that seems to be part of the problem, then. Because very often there is a good reason why people do things in a certain way, and not in another. IMO it never hurts looking around to see what 'state-of-the-art' websites look like.
But to not digress from the actual issue: do you want to maintain that this staggered header design is just what you intend, better than any possible alternative and more usual design? If so, it raises questions about the status of this website: should it be considered an expressionist work of art, that people can admire or puke over according to how well their sense of aesthetics agrees with that of the artist, or is it supposed to service the chess-variant community in the best possible way.