AutoHotkey Community

you are right the headers can be managed in the config
I am unsure where the comment about XP and vista came from

Sorry, I should have quoted you. The XP and Vista comment was because you said "[...] i discard the bottom 20 and top 10 percent [...]".

why don't we have a new homepage yet?

Who needs a new homepage? The forums and the docs are the deciding factors.

I think the deciding factor that gave rise to this forum is that a)We have someone fixing something b) let the users decide a bit.
Your comment is basically against both of that just me. Then again I agree that it is nothing urgent.

That's right. No rush
Precisely... There is no set deadline for this. I want as much input possible. :3

nnnik wrote:Your comment is basically against both of that just me.

That makes no sense. His comment does not somehow negate the fact that we do have someone(s) around to fix things, nor is he denying users their say. He is a user, and has as much right to contribute to a decision as anyone.

I think the point was that it is not important or urgent, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

RIGHT i cant make design decisions based on xp users that doesn't mean i intend to some how take action preventing them. i just cant use them as a basis for choices. and we have time to discuss this until its the right fit before taking action

lexikos wrote:

nnnik wrote:Your comment is basically against both of that just me.

That makes no sense. His comment does not somehow negate the fact that we do have someone(s) around to fix things, nor is he denying users their say. He is a user, and has as much right to contribute to a decision as anyone.

I think the point was that it is not important or urgent, not that it shouldn't be done at all.

If that's the case then I'll take back what I said earlier. I understood it in a slightly different way.

tank wrote:RIGHT i cant make design decisions based on xp users that doesn't mean i intend to some how take action preventing them. i just cant use them as a basis for choices. and we have time to discuss this until its the right fit before taking action

Sorry but I've hit a language barrier here. I can't really understand that.

nnnik wrote:Sorry

As am i my friend. Some how in a string of hasty poorly worded responses i seem to have contributed to you thinking that i do not intend to listen when making choices about code changes to this site.
Let me be clear here. This thread is to serve that purpose. To listen. Not to make choices that adversely affect anyone, just because it suites my idiom.
When i made the comment regarding 20/70/10 it was in regards to the fact that while KB downloaded per request affect site performance, I cannot consider a 100MB/month data-plan in decisions about site features. a 100MB/month plan is an out-liar and no one can build a modern internet site around such a consideration. Of course i want to keep page load time fast which necessitates the smallest possible home page. the smallest possible home page that fits the purpose of greeting new and veteran visitors of this site. One that appears to be up to date like the software we distribute and support. One that like the AutoHotkey language is easy/obvious to get started from.
One that observes that the internet itself is very different from when Chris started this.
So small as possible yes. under 1 MB for first visitors. you betcha. Clean and functional is what this thread is about.
In the course of discussing function however someone says you guys all say feature "X" is critical but that wont load on IE7 correctly. IE7 falls as an out-liar and i cannot use it as a consideration. it is an out-liar because so few real visitors use IE7. and the majority of mainstream users feel like critical feature "X" is critical. In those situations it is a site admins job to first make sure no work around exist but if not then to remove out-liars from the objections to make the implementation that fits most of the user base.
the same would be true if someone conversely said we need feature "X" but it only (doesn't)/works in Edge browser.
At this time i cannot think of any site features that would affect OS except when we do eventually out of necessity enforce TLS 1.2 for the forum. as i said its a different internet. and we are under constant assault. by 2018 no OS/Browser that does not support TLS 1.2 will be able to use online banking/financial sites. by then i will for the sake of the security of this site consider anyone that cannot use TLS 1.2 an out-liar. they wont be able to use google either IMO.
so far the only thing i have seen in this thread that i have said i cannot include in our plans about a new home page "if we reach consensus" is the consideration of a 100MB/month data plan. that person cant browse the internet to more than about 50 pages per month. there is no timetable set for a home page change. .

tank wrote:RIGHT i cant make design decisions based on xp users that doesn't mean i intend to some how take action preventing them. i just cant use them as a basis for choices. and we have time to discuss this until its the right fit before taking action

I was just saying that AHK does support Windows XP and Vista. I mean the non _L version did even support Windows 95 if I recall correctly...

Anyways, have you looked into things like bootstrap? You can create REALLY great websites without using any images whatsoever and if you use libraries like bootstrap, angular and jquery for that, chances are the user has them in his cache already.
I really don't see how it would be even remotely problematic to stay below 10 kilobytes.
Look at this example site for instance: https://getbootstrap.com/examples/jumbotron/#
I counted 3.58 kB. JQquery and bootstrap would add up to additional 66.93kB, but as I said they are most likely already in the users cache anyways.

Images too can be cached. However one should be judicious with their use. 10 KB is not a goal. if whatever Choice we make comes in under half the average. then that is a goal. you cannot even view this page with 10 KB. (actually you cant even load the CSS)

Yes images can be cached, too. But jquery etc, if loaded from google's cdn, is already in the cache because the user visited other websites.
The image is nothing that the user would have cached already from another website.

You could totally make the ahk homepage below 10kB. It's not like using bootstrap is hard. In fact using bootstrap is extremely straight forward and very easy to maintain.

IF i wanted to make such a site i wouldnt need bootstrap. but it would be lacking in content. Let me be clear I am not going to entertain 10 KB as a size metric. If you like bootstrap build and post a link to your example.
If the community preferes it then even better. But i am not setting a criteria for as close to 10KB as possible.

tank wrote:

nnnik wrote:Sorry

As am i my friend. Some how in a string of hasty poorly worded responses i seem to have contributed to you thinking that i do not intend to listen when making choices about code changes to this site.
Let me be clear here. This thread is to serve that purpose. To listen. Not to make choices that adversely affect anyone, just because it suites my idiom.
When i made the comment regarding 20/70/10 it was in regards to the fact that while KB downloaded per request affect site performance, I cannot consider a 100MB/month data-plan in decisions about site features. a 100MB/month plan is an out-liar and no one can build a modern internet site around such a consideration. Of course i want to keep page load time fast which necessitates the smallest possible home page. the smallest possible home page that fits the purpose of greeting new and veteran visitors of this site. One that appears to be up to date like the software we distribute and support. One that like the AutoHotkey language is easy/obvious to get started from.
One that observes that the internet itself is very different from when Chris started this.
So small as possible yes. under 1 MB for first visitors. you betcha. Clean and functional is what this thread is about.
In the course of discussing function however someone says you guys all say feature "X" is critical but that wont load on IE7 correctly. IE7 falls as an out-liar and i cannot use it as a consideration. it is an out-liar because so few real visitors use IE7. and the majority of mainstream users feel like critical feature "X" is critical. In those situations it is a site admins job to first make sure no work around exist but if not then to remove out-liars from the objections to make the implementation that fits most of the user base.
the same would be true if someone conversely said we need feature "X" but it only (doesn't)/works in Edge browser.
At this time i cannot think of any site features that would affect OS except when we do eventually out of necessity enforce TLS 1.2 for the forum. as i said its a different internet. and we are under constant assault. by 2018 no OS/Browser that does not support TLS 1.2 will be able to use online banking/financial sites. by then i will for the sake of the security of this site consider anyone that cannot use TLS 1.2 an out-liar. they wont be able to use google either IMO.
so far the only thing i have seen in this thread that i have said i cannot include in our plans about a new home page "if we reach consensus" is the consideration of a 100MB/month data plan. that person cant browse the internet to more than about 50 pages per month. there is no timetable set for a home page change. .

No I'm Sorry for making you tell me this when I could have just read all messages carefully.
Also I agree with just me now.

These are both pretty but I find the Wikipedia entry for AutoHotKey more informative.

I would like to see a nice was of displaying 2-3 examples.

lol at even justifying yourself to a 100mb/mo data plan. that user can simply bookmark the forums/docs directly. i'm sure he's probably already used to having to monitor himself very carefully

Kiddo, I don't know where you are from, but just in case you didn't know USA!=World.
Look at Germany for instance. The 3G/4G infrastructure is so terrible, that you literally can't get unlimited data plans. The only way the providers are able to keep the system working is by overcharging the customers so much, that people are very careful to not use too much data.

And well, that is just Germany. I really don't wanna know what it looks like in Africa etc.

so traurig...