Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A spinner generated from http://www.ajaxload.info/ is 673 bytes. The minified javascript from this is ~3K. I suppose the trade off is features and flexibility, but I don't find myself needing much out of my ajax spinners.


Also keep an eye on:

  <input type="range"  min="0" max="100">
  <input type="number" min="0" max="100">
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_form_input_types.asp


Please don't link to w3schools. Thanks http://w3fools.com/


The w3schools site provides an excellent overview of the new input types and there browser support in this case. So maybe next time please don't link to w3fools (stupid site imho) but provide a better link.


They might provide information but there's a good chance it's either half bullshit, missing information or just completely wrong. Re-read W3Fools.


Agreed... This is fine as an exercise but I don't want to maintain code for every minor component; I'd rather go with an image even if it were bigger than 3K.


But the ajaxload spinner is evil and they still haven't fixed it! http://www.panic.com/blog/2010/10/spinner-rage/


of all the things to get het up about...


Presentation and details are important - and for something as simple as a spinner it really should be pixel perfect.

It's the difference between "cool, it works" and "wow, this is elegant and beautiful" - the Apple effect, if you will.


The site is great. Thanks for the find.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: