The IE6 Demoscene

There's an active community of people in the demoscene writing code for long-"obsolete" platforms like C64, Atari, NES, etc. These platforms are slow, quirky, and relatively limited, yet they can do all these amazing things with them.

Seeing all these HTML5 "new features" demos, the thought occurred to me: what can we do with a more limited browser? Not something really limited like Lynx, but something still considered obsolete yet maybe more powerful than most people would think. How about IE6? It has JavaScript so you can write programs in it, lots of undocumented/buggy behaviour, and relatively slow, so could be compared to a C64 in some ways. (Lynx would be like a 4004.) What sort of things can you do with it? Should there be a demoscene category "Platform: IE6"?

Discuss.

<smell> MY ANUS</smell>

The issue with Cudder is that he only browses /prog/ and some text-only GNU pages. That's why any browser that can do slightly more than that is considered useless and cancerous.

>brainwashed "web developers" who can't see a simple solution if it hit you in the face
That's not a solution. What I would expect is a proper, kawaii as fuck diff, with colors, little +/- thingies and all.

You really should stay in your Jewish ASM threads, Jewdder.

>>42
I'm actually >>39, and I would expect such a thing to just work in any browser, not only in versions of the Big 3/4 released in the last two months, I don't care how it's implemented.

<object> was kind of decent (I only ever saw it used for fucking flash and java applets though), and it further compounds my point: that we didn't need HTML5, even for <audio> and <video> tags.  It just exists for the sake of existing, and for the sake of complicating the existing standard.

>>40
>ActiveX
stop already, it is not even fun, Microsoft would tamper any competitor attempt by releasing MOAR [poorly documented] FEATURES, even their own teams don't communicate well

>per-site/per-zone configurable security settings
yes, I also miss it and IE > Chrome > Firefox in this aspect

>some browsers are vastly more inefficient
space × time is a tradeoff, but of course you know that... because IE is RUBY AS FUCK

>Standards has nearly nothing to do with it
well, so you better sit your anus in my dick and teach me how to surf web servers without following their standards (do it gently please ;)

>aren't easy to implement, and in that case they're better off not being used
of course, because everything is solved with a CRUD with rounded corners
[okay... if the FEATURE is cumbersome, you shouldn't use it. but implementation problems shouldn't be the last word, e.g. do you remember how RDBMS were born?]

><table><tr><td><iframe src="file1.txt"></iframe><td><iframe src="file2.txt"></iframe></table>
mfw tables everywhere, mwahahahaha [I actually don't care if it solves the problem, html is stupid and there's no right thing to do with it]

--
just try, and I gonna fill your buffers until they overflow, Cudder :3

>>44
Microsoft would tamper any competitor attempt by releasing MOAR [poorly documented] FEATURES, even their own teams don't communicate well
Software is my battlefield.
Compiler is my weapon.
Ignorance is my armor.

>>43
>It just exists for the sake of existing, and for the sake of complicating the existing standard.
There's no standard for embedding audio and video. That's the whole point of HTML5. Standards. So you don't have to worry about how differents browsers, different platforms and different implementations. How the new tags are called doesn't matter (they certainly could have reused the old <object> tag, though).

>>43
Did you know there are new tags to delimit the different sections of a web page? Without these new tags, the solution today is to delimit parts of the web page using <div> and <span> tags. These new tags help separate content from the presentation.

>>47
These are mostly for search engines.

>>46
I really don't get what's not standard about it.  You take an object tag, and you point the data at your file.  Done.  All of the attributes of, for example, the audio tag, are/should be only suggestions for the browser, so they might as well have been tacked on to object.  Hell, maybe I think your browser should display my .swf files muted.

The only problem is that some browsers don't support some formats, and that should be completely expected.  If I look at a page that tries to embed a file my browser can't display, I want a link to that file so I can use another program on my computer to view it.

>>49
>You take an object tag, and you point the data at your file.
You need a clear definition of what can go inside the tag and what can't. There's no point otherwise. You can't just throw in a <embed src="2hu_animu_PV.mkv"> and expect it to work everywhere.

>>45
So as I pray...
Unlimited Browser Works.

>>50
It shouldn't have to be any more complicated than the MIME type.

>>52
Yes, Anon. This way, when you try to embed an mkv file, you don't have to worry about how the browser will handle it. That's what standards are for.

>>50
Why not?  Why shouldn't I be able to write <object data="Satori.dwg" type="application/acad" /> and expect that 1) browsers that choose to allow embedding CAD files embed as expected, and 2) browsers that don't understand application/acad provide a link for download, and 3) the W3C doesn't have to give a shit.  We shouldn't need to have a listing of approved filetypes entrenched into the standard.

>>54
expect that 1) browsers that choose to allow embedding CAD files embed as expected
Nope. What the user and the developer expect is a properly rendered webpage on 99% of browsers without any cross-browser compatibility headaches.
Nobody wants to deal with ``Your browser doesn't support this image format'' or ``You need the SatoriDawg™ plugin to display this page correctly'' inane crap.

>>54
Doesn't that already happen? What do you think happens today?

The issue with Cudder is that he only browses /prog/ and some text-only GNU pages. That's why any browser that can do slightly more than that is considered useless and cancerous.
Wrong on both my web usage and gender. The Internet is much more than stupid Web 2.0 sites filled with flashy mind-numbing uninformative content. If not using a browser with those latest features means I miss out on that, then so be it --- I don't want to see that shit anyway. (Have you seen Imageshack's page with and without JS enabled? The latter is usable, the former is bloody obnoxious with its popup divs, hiding image links, "social media" crap and whatnot.)

That's not a solution
You wrote "embed text files for side-by-side comparison", and that's exactly what you got. Write "proper, kawaii as fuck diff, with colors, little +/- thingies and all" if that's what you want. I'm not psychic.

What the user and the developer expect is a properly rendered webpage on 99% of browsers without any cross-browser compatibility headaches.
What the user expects is what he/she wants to see, which is not necessarily the same as the developer. I really wish "web developers" would stop believing that what they designed their page to look like is absolutely what their users want. I don't want your dark grey on black text in some horrible tiny font. I don't want your pointless JS animated puke crawling around on the page. I don't want to see your time-wasting page transitions, fancy CSS effects or other brainless tripe. I don't care if your divs are a few pixels off in browser X or Y or Z, or that the colours aren't quite the same. I want to see your substantive content, the text and images that actually have an informative purpose. If I can see that in some older browser despite it looking very different from what you see, then your site is useful no matter what you think. Think of it this way: if I was searching for something (let's say a solution to some problem) and happened upon your site, do I care about anything other than the part that I'm interested in? No, so cut out all that other crap and make it easy for me to see that part. (Google's text-only cached version is awesome for this.)

>>57
*takes a piss onto the trip-faggot*

Ignorance is my armour.

>>56
I know (take webp for example, or the video tag and its codec war). But the current situation is much better than it was during the IE6/7/8 era.

>>57

Imageshack
Imageshack is probably the worst image host out there.

I want to see your substantive content
This is exactly what web development is about. But for some reason, you always use the most inane example, exactly like you did with Imageshack. It's amazing how you automatically associate ``web dev'' with ``JS/CSS abuse''.

do I care about anything other than the part that I'm interested in?
Exactly. You care about the content. And for the content to be displayed properly not only in your browser, but in all (or almost all) browsers without any tricks, hacks and other completely retarded IE6-tier workarounds, you need standards.

test

>>57
Guess what, the paying customers and the businesses who attract these customers are the people who drive this "innovation". Welcome to life in 2001.

>>63
Nope. Government, Army and war efforts drive the innovation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGfq0pRczY

Babbage's work, Lisp and Internet - were all funded by government.

>>57
Ever heard of information visualization and usability?

>>58
nice dubs bro

>>65
I don't want to see your time-wasting page transitions, fancy CSS effects or other brainless tripe. I don't care if your divs are a few pixels off in browser X or Y or Z, or that the colours aren't quite the same.
While the Internet was certainly government funded, you can't tell me the demand for multimedia control and multimedia presentation in HTML5 was because the government decided the public would like such features. HTML5 was requested by developers and designers who work in commercial businesses.

That was message supposed to be for poster of >>65.

Imageshack is probably the worst image host out there.
Maybe because you have all those "features" enabled? With JS off it's a perfectly usable image host. (Better than some that don't even work without JS.)

It's amazing how you automatically associate ``web dev'' with ``JS/CSS abuse''.
It's amazing how you automatically associate ``black person'' with ``steals things''.

The term "web developer" has taken that association precisely because of the practices of the majority of them. I make websites too but I don't call myself that.

And for the content to be displayed properly not only in your browser, but in all (or almost all) browsers
Depends what you mean by "properly". To me, it's "can I see the text and the important images? If so, it's good. This div/span/whatever is a few pixels out of place in some browsers? Font size or colour not the same? Doesn't matter a gnat's ass."

>>65
The idea of "usability" created by "UI designers" these days is "let's make things look 'simpler' by hiding everything and making UI elements non-obvious"... UIs these days are dumbed down and contain extra roadblocks to usage, possibly just to create more work.

>>63,67
This is probably why some of the best sites are noncommercial ones. Commercial interests want things like HTML5 because it creates work, whether or not that work is actually useful or just frivolous waste. From the lazy employee perspective, anything that takes time with little gain means "I can earn more by doing less!", while everyone sane loathes such inefficiency. Looks like another case of "Money is the root of all evil"...

>>69
Commercial interests want things like HTML5 because it creates work, whether or not that work is actually useful or just frivolous waste.
Do you know why infographics are a popular way to educate people? There are real psychological reasons why infographics are so effective for its purpose. The theory that explains the nature of an effective infographic is the reason why designers demand certain controls for web development. Designers can design websites that are optimally effective in helping the general public to buy something. Businesses also value customer mindshare and the desire to attract customer mindshare is what drives designers to demand control over multimedia. Information design isn't frivolous because it helps attract customers that pay the bills.

>>70
Graphics are populat because visual perception is evolutionarily most developed in humans. About 90% of information is received visually, but text is only a tiny share of visual forms. `A picture is worth a hundred words`, they say.

>>70
infographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format

>>71
Unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific bullshit. Keep it functional and information based (no useless images) and ignore the stupid pseudo-evolutionist "just so" stories.

>>73 is bullshit opinion.

>>74 is angry that he cant use his pseudo-science to justify his nutty beliefs about human psychology

Infographics make me feel like I'm in first grade again.

>>70
Designers can design websites that are optimally effective in helping the general public to buy something
Knew it, the whole web thing was a kike plot to promote consumerism and dehumanization.

Objective: Allow the user to play the audio of Act one, Scene one of World of the Fourth Chánnel : The Musical. User should be able to get access to the audio regardless whether they use Firefox, IE, emacs or a mail daemon that fetches the webpage (that's you, rms). Easiest playback should be available first, then last.

here's my solution- in a pastebin because shii_tchan eats my HTML posts for breakfast and then calls me a spambot, possibly because I mentioned the !!UNMENTIONABLE THINGS!!

https://pastee.org/m9u5c

Stunning!

I don't like this X-or-Y-or-Z solution, you're only ever going to handle the cases you think of, and it's shitty to handle anything more than one format when storing the audio.

Something like >>54-san's idea would be a lot better.
We could take it further and make any HTML tag that is unknown but contains a src/href attribute to be transformed into a link- or whatever the browser thinks is best. It sees .mp3, it makes a web player (ala HTML5 and the audio tag).

In the real world, people use the X-or-fuck-off standard, which is javascript/jquery for audio, and flash (sometimes with HTML5) for video.
I guess that's the thing, at the end of the day developers want the solution that takes the least amount of time and effort, but displays for the majority of people.
Heck, the only reason HTML5 has been adopted for video is because Apple stopped supporting Flash, and they have a relatively large userbase.

Fuck, my post (>>78) was much better before I lost it to the ban page. I can't express the quality, it was something that'd frontpage on a link agggregator or would be praised as best web-standards blog post of 2013. It wasn't just VIP quality, it was enterprise and DQN quality too.
Now I won't be able to properly bitch with my friends about web standards.

Also, what's going to be next after javascript runs its course?
Personally I dream of client-side Haskell/Racket/Clojure.
That'd be real fuqqin neato.