What is Digg?71 Comments
- camster91, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44how is this web 2.0
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the term AJAX has grown to encompass anything that uses javascript to pull data from the server after page load, whether or not XML is involved.
- floppyparty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Web 2.0 didn't have frames last time i checked.
- donnyburnside, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24...Everything on that site can be found over at DaFont.com which a much cleaner interface than shown here. No digg.
- JeremyBanks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Do you know what AJAX is?
- leszek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22"All fonts are their authors' property and are, to the best of our knowledge, either freeware, demo versions or shareware."
The use of those fonts is highly restricted if we don't know the exact licences ... - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21this is actually web 3.0
common mistake - prosthetichead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+201998 called they want their frames back
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@honds:
Well, I browsed through the source, and looked at all the scripts. This script http://neatfonts.com/dojo/dojo.js has some XMLObjects, and XMLHTTPRequests, so I believe that this is AJAX.
However, the fonts still suck. - nirmaldotca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13did they ripp off http://betterfonts.com/ ? Or dud both these sites ripp someone else off?
- actionjackson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12AJAX = Asynchronous Javascript and XMLHTTPRequest....NOT Asynchronous Javascript and XML. XML is not a requirement for use of the XMLHTTPRequest object and consequently not a requirement for something to qualify as AJAX. Period.
- tweekgeek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@burke: you beat me to it :)
@honds: dude, AJAX has become exactly a term just like "web 2.0". It means something overgeneralized and not well defined anymore. Half the "AJAX" sites out there don't use XML at all. Many use JSON, many use simple formatting of their own.. The general meaning behind a page that uses AJAX these days is that it utilizes the XMLHTTPRequest object. Just wanted to say it's not worth nitpicking the technicalities of something that doesn't and hasn't really mattered for a while now. - Gzero, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The site doesn't use frames. Check the code, or rightclick in firefox...
They just look like frames because they have something like overflow:scroll set inside their css. - jefferson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10we had a teacher at school and we were talking about web design someone said "why cant we use frames?"
"you know what i do when i see a page that uses frames? I hit the back button." - pkkid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10stop arguing. :)
- honds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can type in your own text on this one too.
- prosthetichead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6they even copied the disclaimer.
From better fonts :-
"All fonts are their authors' property and are, to the best of our knowledge, either freeware, demo versions or shareware."
From Neat Fonts:-
"All fonts are their authors' property and are, to the best of our knowledge, either freeware, demo versions or shareware." - honds, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16Correct me and cite the code if you find something to the contrary (I didn't do an exhaustive search). But I believe the site uses just Javascript. No XML. Without the XML it is not AJAX.
- moyness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dafont.com still owns your bones. :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This site is OK but I've been using Dafont (www.dafont.com) for years and it's much better in my view. You can type in your own text, they have mac and PC versions available and it's better categorized.
- yathosho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4web 2.0? you mean the gradient? ha!
- ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This new Digg trend of high school one-liners as article descriptions really detracts from the quality of this site. Can we return to writing useful descriptions?
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What the hell, these are all from http://www.acidfonts.com
What an SOB. - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3but it did have shiny titles...is this Web 1.5? or an old 2.0 alpha?
- danshields, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3My god people, can we stop arguing what is Web 2.0 and what is not. Lets just say whether or not the developers used the latest standards and technologies. Big deal if a site uses AJAX or its a Social Network or whatever else you guys argue about being Web 2.0.
All Web 2.0 is the latest standards and Technologies that us Developers have been using over the past 5 - 10 years that we have been slamming down peoples throat and they weren't getting the hint until now, and now everyone calls it Web 2.0. You people kill me arguing for ever whether or not the site actually uses AJAX or not big deal if it did or didn't I don't think it would of made the site any more then what it really is a damn font site. - JayPiddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's 2.0 cause it has a reflection in the the logo!
- donnyburnside, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, it seems the designer cant quite choose whether to use div's or tables...
- mojo.ash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2some of you missing the point argue over "ajax". This free font website is not web2.0 as the description said. You can't say outlook web client is web2.0 application rite?
- Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Plus its already suffering from the digg effect.
- FHKE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fonts for creating Web 2.0 websites!
- erikuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You got that clear. Thanks! DaFont is better.
- netferret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the fonts look like they have been lifted from www.1001freefonts.com
- Kakaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Blech...these are just the same ***** fonts you find at all those hundreds of other "free font" sites.
When more people start making quality typefaces, such as Gentium, available for free, do post it and I'll digg the hell out of it. Till then, marked as lame. - afterpartyboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's a reason why these fonts are free...
(not to mention they're on all sorts of other free font sites, that don't use frames)
... and how did this get on the front page? And HOW is this web 2.0?? - prosthetichead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@Gzero
and that makes it better? using frames or making it look like a frame, still looks like crap. - honds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@iamcitizen
This is the end of my replies because I don't want to start a war here. But I would be interested to see what part of the Dojo framework is being used. Because from a more extensive look at the source most of the work is done server side by PHP. Yes, the Dojo Toolkit has AJAX in it. Does this site use that part of the toolkit? Not so sure but it's not worth the time to find out.
Thanks to the world of third-part libraries, just because a snippit of code shows up on a page doesn't mean that it is being used. - nubnub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3dafont is better. lame site
- erikuma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't see the relation to web 2.0. There should be any signs of vote, commenting, or any collaboration like Digg has.
- TjLAXattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.duggmirror.com
Original down for me?
EDIT: errr. this doesnt appear to work now? im relatively new to digg, sorry guys. maybe it will be cached soon. - LouisC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Designed 10 years ago, could have been easily made (using frames) 10 years ago, but using technology that's popular today (pretty JS)...
What's the point? - StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Are you kidding? Those interfaces suck.
- ginty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4They changed their URL to www.suckyfontsthateveryothersuckyfontsitehas.com. I think they registered .net too.
- StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11) You can type your own text for this site too.
2) Your Mac can't use TTF? How the hell old is it? (Though I admit, Fontbook complains on about 1/20 of the fonts, but mostly, they work)
3) Subjective, apparently, because I rather like neatsfonts's categories. - StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They seem to be pretty much identical except that neatfonts has categories - I don't see categories on betterfonts.
- tybris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I must say they're right about this Web 2.0 thing, the comments are really more useful than the content. (because the content sucks)
Here's one more for the list:
http://simplythebest.net/fonts/ - goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@camster91: "how is this web 2.0"
How is *anything* Web 2.0, really . . . - brankru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1a second on dafont. it kills.
- mjjack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Especially with the "so cool it hurts" description. That alone makes it lame.
- DesertBeagle, on 01/13/2008, -0/+0if you haven't seen it, http://www.onlyfreefonts.com is a pretty sweet font site too
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is