We Keep Coding

Bug reporting regarding HTML and JavaScript [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I believe I have found a bug in HTML / JavaScript, but I have no idea where to post this bug. Any information on where to post such bugs is appreciated.
The bug can be recreated as follows:
Go to W3Schools Tryit Editor
Make sure you have some other tab open in the same window
Click on the input field to focus it
Click on a different tab in your browser
Depending on your browser, different effects will occur (all unwanted)
This has been tested in Chrome (it will give an infinitely repeating alert), on Firefox (it will give the alert, but not switch tabs when clicking the alert away), and on Edge (it will show that the new tab is selected in the tabs bar, but the rest of the page doesn't switchenter link description here).
Since this bug occurs in multiple browsers, and also since the bug occurs with sample code from w3schools, I believe that this bug is related to HTML / JavaScript more than to a specific browser.

W3Schools isn't affiliated with W3C, the organisation who maintain the HTML specification. Nor are they affiliated with Ecma International, the organisation who maintain the JavaScript specification. Nor, for that matter, are they affiliated with any browser.
The code they've supplied here is their own code. It's not official by any stretch of the imagination: it's code that you or I could have written.
However that said, it looks like you have discovered a bug which affects multiple browsers. This is something you an report on the various browser channels if you so desire. Potorr has already linked you to a couple of these, which can be found by simply searching for something like "{browser name} bug tracker" with a search engine.
However you may consider instead posting directly on W3Schools' forum, as, after all, this is their code: http://w3schools.invisionzone.com/index.php?/forum/45-general.

How to find out what js a site uses? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am looking to develop my personal portfolio site, and would like to implement some sort of 'portfolio of work' area.
I want it to be simple and only display single images, however once the image is clicked a box should expand and show more content, such as design brief, tools used etc..
I have seen some examples of the kind of function I require, like eg http://themeforest.net/item/fraiche-flat-onepage-portfolio-bootstrap-template/full_screen_preview/5351761#portfolio and another here http://wrapbootstrap.com/preview/WB04X111M
I would like to be able to find out what javascript plugins certain sites use so I can experiment with them myself. I have tried viewing the source and looking at the console but I find it difficult.
I have used Firebug and DevTools however I can't seem to figure out what js a carousel uses for example. I am able to view source and look at all the individual files that way. Was wondering if there was an easier way, or a browser add-on that would tell me when viewing the website?
If somebody could point me in the right direction I would be grateful.

There is a very good plugin for firefox called firebug which shows all the JS files loaded for that particular page. In firebug scripts tab you can see that.
chrome comes with developer tools where you can find all the files loaded for that page. You can find this at Tool --> Developer Tools.

Right click, Inspect Element or View Source. Look in head section.
You can also look under the Network and Resources tab in your dev tools in chrome, youll see the request to third party plugins too.

You should use an http sniffer(e.g. Fiddler\HttpAnalyzer etc.) and check what html\js\css etc content is downloaded.
After that, you will need to check the sources and find out how things are done.

As others already suggested - view the page source and try to get desired plugin info from there.
There's also a great Chrome extension that'll allow you to instantly see all the javascript and server-side frameworks that the site runs on, it's called Appspector.

Single Page HTML Site - SEO technique [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I developed a Single Page Responsive Website for my company http://germin8.com/ . Everything is going good however I actually now face a problem with SEO .The site's different sections do not show up in search engine.
I know the cause it being a single page site so not crawler friendly...Inorder to get the URL change I used history pushstate technique and have put href links for menu bar items to sections ..... confused ?? eh
Sample anchor tag outlink ( I thought this is enough for my section to show up in Search Engine :-/ )
a style="text-decoration:none;color:black;padding-left:30px;" class="scrollTo" id="contactUs_Menu"
href="/contact-us">CONTACT</a></li>
Or you may have a look at the source code of the website and follow the anchor tags.
On some research and POC I came across this AJAX crawlable technique by google (https://developers.google.com/webmasters/ajax-crawling ) ...however I couldn't understand it and also feel loading site's sections through ajax would be a lot more work at this stage since my entire site is a static HTML file ( index.php ) with nothing rendered dynamically through javascript/AJAX
Someone who has faced similar problem can you suggest me the simplest and fastest way for my site's different sections ( eg .Clients , Partners , Contact Us etc ) to show up in google engine
Thanks in advance guys :)

Actually this question is more suitable for https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/ but since it has been raised here, I'll try and answer this question to the best of my knowledge.
Unfortunately, there is no shortcut for SEO and to be able to fetch search results in your favor is a slow and painful process. The basic principle of SEO is doing simple things right and provide quality content to your users in your website and not worry much about the ranking.
That being said, your expectation is slightly unrealistic for the following reasons,
You are asking Google to index a page that doesn't even exist.
The URL is changed with JavaScript on runtime, which is something no-search-enginebot is good at indexing.
However, there are couple of things that you can improve in terms of SEO (not going to guarantee what you have asked),
Make sure you have sitemap.xml file in the root directory of your website. You need to add individual sub-page links for each url like this,
<url>
<loc>http://germin8.com/clients</loc>
<lastmod>2005-01-01</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
<priority>0.8</priority>
</url>
Once you are done with sitemap.xml file. Open your Google Webmaster Account (also make sure your Google Analytics account is linked to your webmaster profile) and validate the structure and schema of the sitemap file.
Write better anchor text - Add title attribute to your anchor tags. Avoid inline styles as much as you can. Use complete url instead of relative paths for href attribute.
Google doesn't like slow websites. Hence, you need to focus a lot on the performance of your website. Also no user likes to see a webpage loading for ages. Make efforts to concatenate, minify and lint your assets(html/css/js). Gzip compression is required as well.
149 requests with 4.1 MB is huge. You need to reduce the number of HTTP requests you make massively!
Conclusion
Apart from the above, I don't really see your internal links not being visible on search results as a big problem. Your primary objective is to make sure that your users land on your webpage (this is something that you already doing). After the user enters your territory (website) he has the liberty to navigate to any section of the webpage.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://germin8.com&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&strip=1
I dont see any problem with indexing of your site. Clients will not showup in normal search but they would show up in google images. You should give alt tag to best describe the client images that you have used. Above url will give you an idea how Google bot sees your site. So you can notice all text is indexed by google including your heading where clients are listed. Hope this solves your concern.

iPad compatible HTML Wysiwyg editor [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Are there any iPad compatible wysiwyg HTML editors?
Edit: What I'm looking for is something that would work on a web app, not a native iPad app.

I think that the GDocs editor might work, but keep in mind that there's almost no editor like that, they are managing everything by themselves.
The rest of editors try to use contentEditable, and Apple itself warns against using it with the iPad: http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/technotes/tn2010/tn2262/#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40009577-CH1-DontLinkElementID_7

I would advise you to use NicEditor which has an option of using content editable divs rather than iframe(has some issues in ipad)

I don't know but think that what you are after is something to edit the code of a web app. If it is then since the web app is essentially a web page you could use any text editor, I personally like Gusto for the iPad- http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gusto/id364906873?mt=8.
Either that or you are looking for a HTML editor which is a web app itself. In that case, sorry I don't know of any.

I am sure there may be a few that exist. I have not had any experience with either but take a look at the below links:
iPad HTML Editor - http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kytekhtmleditor/id349354394?mt=8
SquareSpace for iPad - http://mashable.com/2010/12/21/squarespace-ipad/
Check out the following Web (html) Wysiwyg Editors.:
Dreamweaver
Flux (Mac only)
Creative Suite
Expression Web/Studio
There are a quite few available WYSIWYG editors and some are even free. However, 'free' is not always best as the code compilation may not be optimal and important features are lacking.
Hope that helps!

I was also looking for this too and couldn't find it so I coded it myself.
iPad web based Code Editor (with extra symbols keyboard)
It is a web-based code editor that allows you to type in all the symbols and characters used when programming (brackets, equal sign, tab, quotes...). It is currently in a very early stage so you will need to copy/paste the code, edit, copy/paste again somewhere else (Dropbox, FTP client).
You may also want to check out CodeAnywhere, they have a native app AND also a web-app.

I've experienced a similar issue in a web app I've developed that does not allow wysiwyg editing when run on an IPad/IPhone. The wysiwyg component I use is Telerik's RadEditor (a terrific product, btw), and Telerik has posted a KB page regarding this issue at http://www.telerik.com/support/kb/aspnet-ajax/editor/support-for-iphone-ipad-browser.aspx. It seems, at this point, that Apple has chosen to lock down Safari on the IPad/IPhone in such a way that these rich text editors do not work. I haven't yet seen an alternative solution to this (other than allowing IPad/IPhone users to enter their content in a plain ol' textbox) but am keeping my ear to the ground.

javascript and seo [closed]

Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a javascript snippet that clients can put on their webpages that loads some text associated with embedded flash objects (like Slideshare presentations) on that page. Does Google crawl this type of content? Will this provide any SEO benefit? If not, what else should I consider. I don't want to force people to embed the actual content since they typically have multiple pages that use this script and the there is typically a lot of text. Any suggestions?

google does execute on page javascript quite well, but the current seo consensus is that external javascript (i.e.: asynchronous loaded content )does not count as part of the page.
this means, that script (the loaded text) is not seo valuable.
if you want the text to be valuable it must be onpage, means it must be in the html of the page, so basically you will have to go with the big (text already included) js snippet.
but before you rush to make it "seo-valuable"e please be aware that duplicate content is usually not valuable. so if the text shows up on different pages it might not be useful to include the text at all.

Flash is popular on the Web, but each presents challenges to the search engines in terms of indexing the related content. This creates a gap between the user experience with a site and what the search engines can find on that site.
It used to be that search engines did not index Flash content at all. In June 2008, Google announced that it was offering improved indexing of this content
(http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/06/improved-flash-indexing.html).
This announcement indicates that Google can index text content and find and follow links within Flash files. However, Google still cannot tell what is contained in images within the Flash file. Here are some reasons why Flash is still not fully SEO-friendly:
Different content is not on different URLs
This is the same problem you encounter with AJAX-based pages. You could have unique frames, movies within movies, and so on that appear to be completely unique portions of the Flash site, yet there’s often no way to link to these individual elements.
The breakdown of text is not clean
Google can index the output files in the SWF file to see words and phrases, but in Flash, a lot of your text is not inside clean or tags; it is jumbled up into half-phrases for graphical effects and will often be output in the incorrect order. Worse still are text effects that often require “breaking” words apart into individual letters to animate them.
Flash gets embedded
A lot of Flash content is only linked to by other Flash content wrapped inside shell Flash pages. This line of links, where no other internal or external URLs are referencing the interior content, means some very low PageRank/link juice documents. Even if they manage to stay in the main index, they probably won’t rank for anything.
Flash doesn’t earn external links like HTML
An all-Flash site might get a large number of links to the home page, but interior pages almost always suffer. For embeddable Flash content, it is the HTML host page earning those links when they do come.
SEO basics are often missing
Anchor text, headlines, bold/strong text, img alt attributes, and even title tags are not simple elements to properly include in Flash. Developing Flash with SEO in mind is just more difficult than doing it in HTML. In addition, it is not part of the cultural lexicon of the Flash development world.
A lot of Flash isn’t even crawlable
Google has indicated that it doesn’t execute external JavaScript calls (which many Flashbased sites use) or index the content from external files called by Flash (which, again, a lot of Flash sites rely on). These limitations could severely impact what a visitor can see versus what Googlebot can index.
Note that it used to be that you could not test the crawlability of Flash, but the Adobe Search Engine SDK does allow you to get an idea as to how the search engines will see your Flash file.

You can have the content on an external page.
If you don't want Google to crawl it, block it with robots.txt
If you don't want Google to index it (possibly a better option) use x-robots or noindex in the head.
Whether you use javascript to pull it into the page, iframes, or both really comes down to implementation and what the included page may need to access on the page, tracking, sessions etc.

Although google does not crawl flash and java script so well but these are not the only things crucial for SEO. There are many other things which matters such as keyword density, quality of content, inboubd and outbound linking, titles and content should be well managed with proper tags etc. So if flash/java script is necessity then use it but do not use it in excess.

Google is not efficient at reading or indexing flash elements. If I had to publish content like slideshare, I would produce a PDF. This can be indexed with no problem, it could drag traffic to my website.

Google crawls Flash objects to some extent. But in my experience a best solution (if Flash is imminent) is to use SWFObject for alternative HTML text. This will make your Flash and your Site 100% Google friendly and, more importantly, user friendly.
For more information go here:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/alternative_content.html

People read way too much into what Google will think about the technology or specific code they use on their site. If you're on the up-and-up and not using the code to cloak, deceive visitors or hijack sessions...you're going to be just fine. Will you rank better if you subbed all text for Flash? Maybe a little, but at the end of the day it's the quality of your content (yes, even if it's not text-based), the number of people that find it useful (via high quality links) and other small factors.
8 years ago, your answer would have been more valid for not including JS, but it just doesn't matter much anymore, Google treats navigable websites the same and ranks primarily around "quality", not usability excessive keyword rich text.