Comments for Matthew Gifford http://www.matthewgifford.com Thu, 03 May 2012 06:36:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 This is an XML content feed. It is intended to be viewed in a newsreader or syndicated to another site, subject to copyright and fair use. Comment on Budget sucks! by dan http://www.matthewgifford.com/2003/11/16/budget_sucks/comment-page-2/#comment-34893 dan Thu, 03 May 2012 06:36:09 +0000 http://matthewgifford.com/2003/11/16/#comment-34893 <p>It may look cheaper, but don't get reeled in. These death traps are a danger to your family and the American Highways. And if you happen to get sucked in, be sure to document every single scratch on that pile of crap before you drive away, if you don't, you'll be paying for it!</p> It may look cheaper, but don’t get reeled in. These death traps are a danger to your family and the American Highways. And if you happen to get sucked in, be sure to document every single scratch on that pile of crap before you drive away, if you don’t, you’ll be paying for it!

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Matt http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34892 Matt Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:25:03 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34892 <p>Good catch, Libby. The page is fixed. I don't know if orientation is defined in any desktop browsers. It's undefined in Chrome.</p> Good catch, Libby. The page is fixed. I don’t know if orientation is defined in any desktop browsers. It’s undefined in Chrome.

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Libby http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34891 Libby Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:18:12 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34891 <p>Months ago I thought I had run your test page on my desktop - but now I get HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR Dom exception 3 (chrome). Should it work on desktop?</p> <p>Still works great on my device, and I finally learned to bookmark it.</p> Months ago I thought I had run your test page on my desktop – but now I get HIERARCHY_REQUEST_ERR Dom exception 3 (chrome). Should it work on desktop?

Still works great on my device, and I finally learned to bookmark it.

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Stefan http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34890 Stefan Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:41:50 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34890 <p>If you're just in need for portrait/landscape detection, you still can use media queries. Even in JS: http://www.fettblog.eu/blog/2012/04/16/robust-(but-hacky)-way-of-portrait/landscape-detection/</p> If you’re just in need for portrait/landscape detection, you still can use media queries. Even in JS: http://www.fettblog.eu/blog/2012/04/16/robust-(but-hacky)-way-of-portrait/landscape-detection/

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Matt http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34888 Matt Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:53:43 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34888 <p>I didn't think about the possibility of getting different results when turning the device the other way. I just tried rotating my Galaxy Nexus clockwise. It returned -90 for both landscape orientations. Apparently, I'm not understanding something about this.</p> I didn’t think about the possibility of getting different results when turning the device the other way. I just tried rotating my Galaxy Nexus clockwise. It returned -90 for both landscape orientations. Apparently, I’m not understanding something about this.

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Libby http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34887 Libby Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:29:12 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34887 <p>I hadn't read thru to the last 2 paragraphs before I ran your test code on 2 Android devices. Thought I was going to get to the bottom of things, finally, but you really just explained the confusion more clearly :-)</p> <p>Motorola Droid: Starting at 0 / Portrait then rotating counter-clockwise gave results like your 2nd ("Google") example, BUT I found that if I started at 0 / Portrait and rotated CLOCKWISE by 90, it would report -90 for that landscape orientation - so apparently the "last known orientation" affects current reporting as well. (unless rotating 90 counter-clockwise is the only way to test!?)</p> <p>Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1: Like your Toshiba Thrive results, where default orientation / 0 appears to be Landscape (with lettering on back right-side-up). Well, except in the case of using jQuery Mobile, which tries to be clever and detect "default orientation", but sometimes fails, or gets confused, depending on which orientation the device was in when the app launched.</p> <p>One would think something so simple could be easily standardized..</p> I hadn’t read thru to the last 2 paragraphs before I ran your test code on 2 Android devices. Thought I was going to get to the bottom of things, finally, but you really just explained the confusion more clearly :-)

Motorola Droid: Starting at 0 / Portrait then rotating counter-clockwise gave results like your 2nd (“Google”) example, BUT I found that if I started at 0 / Portrait and rotated CLOCKWISE by 90, it would report -90 for that landscape orientation – so apparently the “last known orientation” affects current reporting as well. (unless rotating 90 counter-clockwise is the only way to test!?)

Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1: Like your Toshiba Thrive results, where default orientation / 0 appears to be Landscape (with lettering on back right-side-up). Well, except in the case of using jQuery Mobile, which tries to be clever and detect “default orientation”, but sometimes fails, or gets confused, depending on which orientation the device was in when the app launched.

One would think something so simple could be easily standardized..

]]> Comment on Simple things by Jenn http://www.matthewgifford.com/2012/02/15/simple-things/comment-page-1/#comment-34886 Jenn Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:14:08 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1935#comment-34886 <p>So effing cute.</p> So effing cute.

]]> Comment on A misconception about window.orientation by Matt http://www.matthewgifford.com/2011/12/22/a-misconception-about-window-orientation/comment-page-1/#comment-34885 Matt Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:13:42 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1900#comment-34885 <p>The code for the orientation page is here, if you don't feel like viewing the source. https://gist.github.com/1943615</p> The code for the orientation page is here, if you don’t feel like viewing the source. https://gist.github.com/1943615

]]> Comment on Simple things by Matt http://www.matthewgifford.com/2012/02/15/simple-things/comment-page-1/#comment-34884 Matt Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:18:57 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1935#comment-34884 <p>I know. I was tempted to take it away from him. But that would've ruined his fun.</p> I know. I was tempted to take it away from him. But that would’ve ruined his fun.

]]> Comment on Simple things by Angela http://www.matthewgifford.com/2012/02/15/simple-things/comment-page-1/#comment-34883 Angela Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:12:04 +0000 http://www.matthewgifford.com/?p=1935#comment-34883 <p>Good thing his car didn't slip out of his hand. That would have been one very sad toddler!</p> Good thing his car didn’t slip out of his hand. That would have been one very sad toddler!

]]>