What is Digg?322 Comments
- flyswat, on 10/20/2007, -13/+343While it looks clever, anything that makes it temporarily harder to read a link is not a good UI design.
- Scyth3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+122The next blink tag! Yay...
//good code and well documented though. - jkbowman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+112Very slick. - I think I could grow to hate it.
- jpetrov, on 10/10/2007, -11/+110I honestly don't see the "cool". It looks like 199x effect to me. Like those animated gif thingies. :)
- Hemingrubbish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+80Reminds me of similar annoyance at blinking text.
- evillawngnome, on 10/10/2007, -23/+78I'm basically going to ***** on everyone who commented positively on this.
1. This is not new. Javascript has been around for a little while.
2. This is not web 2.0. This is a throwback to the 90's, when it was cool to throw every animated gif and text effect on one page.
I don't know how this got frontpage'd. This is awful. You will see this on MySpace pages. Buried. - flyswat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+50You might want to try reading the entire page next time.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+47I don't understand. Why add the weight of another JS script in the header and additional CSS just to replace a:hover which works in any browser as it is?
- gometro33, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44This could be applied to a lot more than just links. You could, for instance, use it to hide certain things (like a spoiler) that would require the user to hover over the spot to see it. I know this can be done without the scrollover but this adds a little "jazz" to it.
- moisie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35First time = nifty
Second time = meh
Third time onwards = crap - adidax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+331997 called. They want their crap back.
- DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35Skulls, rotating, with FIRE!
- Vich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28Did anyone realise why this isn't better than a mouse-over?
BECAUSE IT IS A MOUSEOVER
It just has javascript linked to it.
Here I was thinking it was going to be some cool way to detect like a mouse over an object and the mouse wheel being scrolled.
Buried for inaccurate, lame and misleading. - HeyChinaski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23"giving your users an experience they weren't expecting"
An unexpected UI experience is rarely good; unless its exposing a valuable new metaphor to a user, which this isn't as far as I can see. - phej, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Kind of cool, but basically the new blink tag. No thanks.
- lambdachi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.
- rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22on your myspace page i guess
- jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26People, please stop saying "2.0"
This is a marketing term coined for sales. - 10goto10, on 10/10/2007, -10/+29Very 2.0, but also very quickly getsickoffable I think...
- Azimuth1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24You should bury your browser as lame.
- spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17"anything developed with JavaScript isn't *new*"
That's like saying anything written in English isn't new. - kensavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19the article doesn't say it's new. Nor does it say its Web 2.0.
only the commenters do. Why bury something for the comments? That's the reason why Digg will fail. - dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18This submission makes me happy, now the CSS crowd can deal with the poorly created, template driven, "throw 400 cool things" on a page designers. The Flash community has dealt with this stigma for long enough.
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Really, I've never seen this effect on a link before. Sure anything developed with JavaScript isn't *new*, but it can be a newish use of JavaScript. That's like saying that Gmail wasn't anything new because JavaScript and xml have been around for years.... but nobody ever thought to apply it that way.
- riddlebox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16No only harder to read temporarily, but its just more code that has to be implemented and creating long load time. Minimize Javascript, and only use it where it's necessary. There is proof of this on digg comments. Completely unnecessary to use ajax to hide the comments.
- AndrewJC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14No kidding. You know what would make a good addition to a blog?
Content. - Klinky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Frankly, I wish there was a static version of the page. I really don't need an AJAXy interface with animated DIGG icons. It's rather annoying to have your CPU pegged at 100% for 10 seconds because the Digg comments are so heavily laced with Javascript / DOM rearrangements. Slashdot renders to static html and you can load hundreds of comments on one page with nary a slowdown. Either that or we really need some advancements in rendering Javascript such as JIT-compiler or some heavy optimization done because Javascript is very slow and it's limitations definitely show.
- TheSabre, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Buried for inaccurate. This isn't a "scrollover', it's still a mouseover. The event fires when your *mouse* hovers *over* the link. Not when you scroll over the link.
- kensavage, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16tough crowd
- wiremonkeymommy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12twitching text, that's *exactly* what my over-tired eyes need...
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11how? it activates -after- you have your attention on it already.
- cjschmidt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Hmm, the page doesn't even display for me in Safari. Don't think I'll be using this guy's CSS any time soon.
- RotaJota, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Are you serious? This is the worst thing since blinking text. Buried as inaccurate.
- jlgosse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Yeah... that should be painfully obvious.
- ell0bo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Sometimes it's fun to see what you can get working, but not actually good to apply that knowledge. I think this is an example of such myself. I see a list of links just rolling over and over and people starting to feel sea sick.
- skankyBacon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10How does that imply that you are unable to read the whole thing?
- whisperedlie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9ugh. sorry, but that's really distracting and irritating.
- raynar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9So should I use this instead of my scrolling marquee?
- rd3k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Screen readers play a large part in accesible web design actually
- dolemite5005, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Color me #unimpressed
- boredsam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I could die happily if I never see the phrase "very 2.0" ever again. I do agree though that it's easy to get sick of the scroll over. After about the third time it loses its' charm.
- spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8But the remaining 0.01% should be commended. I used to use Snap Previews on my blog but I decided to switch to ordinary ALT text for the benefit of the sight impaired.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Jquery has AJAX functions built into it. When you click Show Comment it says 'Fetching' and sometimes takes more than 3 seconds. Most likely AJAX. In Jquery its simply $.ajax(functions)
- chrisxkelley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8apparently he's allowed to check digg comments and reply to them, but not read other webpages
- rudy23, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9ajax may be good for digg comments becasue then theres fewer comments to pull and render on te page making the page load faster. unfortunately someone wrote such a ***** piece of code that its slower than before now.
- sindrit, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Probably the most annoying web feature since <blink>.
- polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You mean "scrollovers_ScrollSpeed" has something to do with controlling the scroll speed of the scroll over? You guys are blowing my mind.
- simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7all these positive comments have to be bots... they seem a little weird to me.
- dbulli, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Is really injecting all this extra code worth this? Screen readers will read every link twice ... now that SUCKS!
Don't want to knock it though as it is a nice effect ... blank safari 2.0 page is a little alarming ... still i digg ... - se7en11, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Based on the title, I thought it was going to be using the scroll button on the mouse to navigate through a list of items.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 315 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is