

The New jQuery Site - franze
http://jquery.com///

======
radio4fan
Looks quite nice.

On a high-traffic site like this, I'm surprised they've not really addressed
performance.

Currently:

Scripts at the top, not the bottom

CSS not concatenated and minimized

JS not minimized

GZIP not enabled on the server

Icons not in a sprite sheet

Also, invalid HTML.

I know, I need to chill out.

~~~
emn13
... and it is indeed rather slow for such a simple site.

------
cgarvey
I love how critical everyone is being of this site, despite the fact this
organization has saved us all so much effort and time during our careers.

I'm easily willing to forgive a few browser compatibility bugs considering
what they've done for the Web. I'm also happy they've updated their site, it
was a long time coming and I think it looks great, certainly an improvement in
my eyes.

~~~
ergo14
What exactly did they "do to the web", that other JS frameworks do not
provide? Because I could name few things like requirejs/cometd that came from
for example dojo foundation (dojotoolkit), that did influence the way people
work with javascript.

~~~
MoOmer
For one, their documentation has consistently been accessible to beginners.
Other frameworks might have had some crossover functionality, but Jq wrapped
it all up in a neat, concise, package complete with a supportive community and
excellent documentation that takes away the intimidation for new entrants.

Anyone who has written an 'Ajax' connection call in JavaScript can attest to
the relief it has brought on that front alone.

DOM manipulation within your scripts, without having to patch together
different libraries in an unreadable mess is nice too.

I've done limited things with the tool, and I can see its benefits clearly -
maybe because I see the tool as a curated forest, where those packages you
mentioned are like scattered, but awesome in their own right, trees.

Forgive me for the short response, I'm on a phone.

~~~
ergo14
Fair enough, although it looks like you don't have comparison with other
tools. Thanks for non-hostile answer.

------
eykanal
Oh, the irony... the new jQuery website layout is completely borked in IE 8.
So much for cross-browser compatibility.

On a different note, I love how they have Stack Overflow listed in their
"support" links. It's also cool that they're pushing CDN usage of jQuery more
than the download version (based on relative space given to each on the home
page).

~~~
jrajav
Yep, you're partially right: <http://imgur.com/vFTvFTP>

However, it's worth noting that it works fine in IE8 _if you have it set to
IE8 Standards mode_. (<http://imgur.com/GEuyx8X>) I'm sure that, like me, you
had it set to IE7 Standards mode for testing purposes. Even jQuery itself no
longer supports IE7.

~~~
lobo_tuerto
You sure?

From: <http://jquery.com/browser-support/>

    
    
      jQuery 1.x	IE 6+
      jQuery 2.x	IE 9+
    

"Any problem with jQuery in the above browsers should be considered and
reported as a bug in jQuery."

~~~
jrajav
Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say that they no longer support IE7 (or
apparently IE8) going forward with the new version, 2.x.

------
bhauer
This isn't all that new, right? I feel it's been this way for at least several
weeks.

(I know, new is open to interpretation, but generally when I see something on
the HN front page, it is from within a day or two.)

~~~
rexf
Correct, this design went live weeks ago (i.e. not within the past couple
days).

------
brador
Here's the thing. That header is huge and still exists on the docs pages.

I'm sure it looks great on a iMac, but on a 13" screen it takes up 1/3 of the
space. Every page click on the API docs requires a scroll down to get to the
juicy content below. My finger gets tired.

I love the PHP.net site docs. No header, just meat.

Edit: A quick look around and as a reminder to myself, best I could find (fast
+ useful + instant search): <http://www.jqapi.com/#p=width>

------
sergiotapia
I really like the transition the web is going through to a flat design.
Focused 100% on content and highlighting the important bits using proper
spacing, and typography relationships.

Kudos on the website. I love how it highlights crossbrowser, lightweight and
features CSS3 selectors.

------
adnam
I just went to check there weren't any ninjas or rock stars this time.

------
timmillwood
A little odd why they ditched Drupal (a CMS) for Wordpress (a blogging
platform).

~~~
grey-area
Maybe they found Wordpress to be simpler and easier to extend/use than Drupal?
Drupal can be pretty unwieldy sometimes, esp. on big sites, here's one that
moved away and why:

<http://erickennedy.org/Drupal-7-Reasons-to-Switch>

If all you need is a few template variations, a theme, and lots of editable
content, Wordpress is a good choice as a basic CMS which is user friendly. You
can easily cache the results and performance is fine; it actually makes a
pretty good CMS for basic sites.

~~~
kitsune_
This guy switched to a web application framework, not another CMS.

Whenever Drupal is discussed, I see people comparing it to Rails, Django and
other web application frameworks.

I don't get it. The CMS market is entirely different from the custom web
application market. Most web sites run on some form of content management
system: Day CQ5, SiteCore, Typo3, OpenText, Umbraco, ExpressionEngine,
WordPress, Drupal, DotNetNuke, eZ, epiServer and so on. This is a huge market.

People who make the above comparison seem to be guys that have started web
development with Drupal or Wordpress, and progressed to create ever more
complex solutions over time. Then later they discover Rails. Congratulations.

I'm of the opinion, that ultimately, all CMS suck in one way or another, I
hate them with a passion, but compared to most, Drupal is a shining beacon of
light and reason. Seriously.

From a financial perspective, custom web applications usually do not make
sense for businesses who want a complex web site. Most companies are also
hesitant to shell out 200k+ on an untested, custom made piece of software
developed by a small company. Compared to that, a SiteCore solution with its
60k license looks cheaper and more reliable.

------
beeux
I don't like it. For me it is really hard to find something there

------
jdrummond
Actually, according to webarchive, this version is up since the 24th of Jan.

23th Snapshot: <http://web.archive.org/web/20130122230349/http://jquery.com/>

24th Snapshot: <http://web.archive.org/web/20130124012815/http://jquery.com/>

------
nollidge
Totally weird observation, but this is the first time I'm seeing an aesthetic
quite like the background [0] on that fat gray header area - sort of gritty
like a blackboard, but yet nice and gridlike?

[0] Link: [http://jquery.com/jquery-wp-
content/themes/jquery/images/dar...](http://jquery.com/jquery-wp-
content/themes/jquery/images/dark-grey-tile.png)

~~~
kristofferR
It's not too uncommon, I've seen it used quite a lot of times (can't remember
where though).

There's a free Creative Commons texture you can use available here:
<http://subtlepatterns.com/3px-tile/>

------
gbog
I hope they carefully ponder the coding convention they use in the examples,
because so many people will reproduce them.

For instance I don't love the ( parens spacing ), is there a good reason for
these added spaces?

~~~
netaustin
As long as it's internally consistent, I'm OK with it; that space is common
enough (WordPress core style employs spaces like that).

------
marco-fiset
Nothing new here. This design is up for at least a couple of weeks already.

~~~
jdrummond
Thought the same. Clicked on the link and thought I would see something new.
No luck.

------
ricardobeat
32kb gzipped and minified is not lightweight at all, it's over 200kb of code
in a not so readable style. Why is that the most proeminent "feature"?

~~~
dguaraglia
That's still there from the olden days when 'small' was a feature when
compared to 'heavy' stuff like YUI, Dojo and all that.

Nowadays it's a bit of an irrelevance, unless you are on a mobile browser (and
chances are if you are on a mobile browser you'll be using jQuery Mobile which
is _freaking slow_ even on my somewhat new Android phone)

~~~
ricardobeat
It's absolutely _not_ irrelevant - mobile usage is growing exponentially, in
many areas it is nearing 50% usage, and mobile-oriented libraries like jQuery
mobile are only used for apps, not websites (fortunately - they suck). Usage
from 3G/4G devices (tablets, mobile routers/modems, etc) is also growing
quickly. Optimizing delivery is important even on the desktop.

Not that jQuery's 32kb will make a world of difference, but that's not a good
mindset to be spreading around.

------
To1ne
No longer a konami code. <http://konamicodesites.com/>

------
bakli
Looks cleaner and much better!

------
pkorzeniewski
box-shadow... box-shadow everywhere :)

