9 ms·

This article is suggesting not using any js library, no XMLHttpRequests, no single-page aps. Just go back to 1990?

by eddd 11y ago

tenfingers 11y ago
Is it really that bad? Most of the web is about reading content, and this is where all points on the page shine. I agree with basically everything on that page. In fact, we built fully-fledged browser extensions to override website's choices in fonts, colors and whatnot (point 1). We build extensions to kill js by default (point 2). We increasingly disable plugins by default (point 3). We have extensions to block advertising, including inline ones (point 4). Frames are a thing of the past (point 5), although visual clutter still reigns in "web tabloids" (although we still patch the css via custom styles/extensions) 6) Web fonts have very often poor hinting and lower quality than the exact equivalent in the system. The difference between my locally installed Roboto font and the Woff version is insane. The worst part is that the google font loaders loads the woff version ANYWAY! Web tablois will still chose random fonts based purely on the looks. Combined with poor hinting, this has prompted me to disable web fonts on my standard browsing profile. Of course, nobody wants tracking, this seems quite widespread now, with browsers including the useless DNT header (point 7) "No pagination" went even overboard with continuous loading pages, which many (including myself) hate (point 8). What about the "facebook/linkedin" login that many websites/betas require to join, and that almost everybody hates? (point 9) And when all you need to do is reading, you don't want over-the-top animations when you hover on this, dynamic loading that prevents pages to be saved to disk for later reading, and whatever webdesigners think "it's cool" nowdays, because in the end what matters most is the content. The fact that we have "reader modes" in browsers now is pretty saddening. And it's all due to massive, abusive design using otherwise good browsers extensions.
- barrad0s 11y ago
  I do agree as well.
- krapp 11y ago
  Yes. There is a difference between optimizing the design of the parts of the web which are for reading text, or filtering the web as it is to your liking through plugins or whatnot, and forbidding the web from ever being about anything more than simply reading text. Because of course, most people don't have a problem with the web as it is, except maybe for a few details like intrusive advertising which could be done away with without eliminating javascript, css and layout complexity entirely. They use it, and enjoy it, and it brings value to their lives. Insisting that the web is wrong, that most of the people using it are wrong to accept it, that most of the creative decisions made in it are wrong for even attempting to design it, that every possible use of javascript is wrong by definition, and that the only "proper" web is one in which simple, static text documents be allowed to exist is, yes, "really that bad."
  - tenfingers 11y ago
    I think you're conflating too many things in your argument. I'm not against evolution, and there's plenty of good uses for most of the recent browser developments in the last decade. Heck, I love what you can do in interactive python notebooks, and there's plenty of very successful pages that use modern technologies at their finest. But it's a very small minority. So small, in fact, that a "whitelist-based" approach, such as disabling webfonts everywhere but selected sites, has a net-positive effect: it also works on the websites that choose good fonts, because those websites are ironically also the websites that gracefully degrade and/or use html semantically. Similarly for other features. Many websites, to put it simply, are simply "badly styled" (I don't like to use "designed", because designed would imply some tuning based on a real usage pattern). I also don't think that users that think that way are in minority: it cannot be that "reader" extensions (which do - in essence - exactly what has been described in the manifesto!) got bundled into browsers as a selling point. If there was no need, they wouldn't be bundled at all. Clearly, there are some non-insignificant amount of people that see this as a plus.
    - krapp 11y ago
      Fair enough - it's impossible to argue that the backlash isn't due to a real phenomenon. Although, browsers also ship with developer tools so I don't know how widely used the reader mode is, or whether it's targeted at a general audience or the tech audience. Most of the (admittedly anecdotal) complaints I see on social media sites have to do more with changing the UI around and messing with people's expectations than with poor fonts or loading times, or javascript.
jalfresi 11y ago
Aww man, that was would be amazing. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic :(
- eddd 11y ago
  I wasn't sarcastic, I am just pointing out that most of the shiny single-page apps don't have to be shiny whatsoever. Take stooq.com for example, I am using it because is reliable, fast and clean - but it still looks like from early 90'. The thing is, many companies decide to use fancy technologies/solution to bump theirs market value - it is not a way to go, but you cant change the environment. What's more - It is quite often a managers call to say 'we need our site to be cutting-edge', so they pick angular, react, whatever just because other companies do it.

This article is suggesting not using any js library, no XMLHttpRequests, no single-page aps. Just go back to 1990?

by eddd 11y ago

This article is suggesting not using any js library, no XMLHttpRequests, no single-page aps. Just go back to 1990?

Is it really that bad? Most of the web is about reading content, and this is where all points on the page shine. I agree with basically everything on that page. In fact, we built fully-fledged browser extensions to override website's choices in fonts, colors and whatnot (point 1). We build extensions to kill js by default (point 2). We increasingly disable plugins by default (point 3). We have extensions to block advertising, including inline ones (point 4). Frames are a thing of the past (point 5), although visual clutter still reigns in "web tabloids" (although we still patch the css via custom styles/extensions) 6) Web fonts have very often poor hinting and lower quality than the exact equivalent in the system. The difference between my locally installed Roboto font and the Woff version is insane. The worst part is that the google font loaders loads the woff version ANYWAY! Web tablois will still chose random fonts based purely on the looks. Combined with poor hinting, this has prompted me to disable web fonts on my standard browsing profile. Of course, nobody wants tracking, this seems quite widespread now, with browsers including the useless DNT header (point 7) "No pagination" went even overboard with continuous loading pages, which many (including myself) hate (point 8). What about the "facebook/linkedin" login that many websites/betas require to join, and that almost everybody hates? (point 9) And when all you need to do is reading, you don't want over-the-top animations when you hover on this, dynamic loading that prevents pages to be saved to disk for later reading, and whatever webdesigners think "it's cool" nowdays, because in the end what matters most is the content. The fact that we have "reader modes" in browsers now is pretty saddening. And it's all due to massive, abusive design using otherwise good browsers extensions.

barrad0s 11y ago
I do agree as well.
krapp 11y ago
Yes. There is a difference between optimizing the design of the parts of the web which are for reading text, or filtering the web as it is to your liking through plugins or whatnot, and forbidding the web from ever being about anything more than simply reading text. Because of course, most people don't have a problem with the web as it is, except maybe for a few details like intrusive advertising which could be done away with without eliminating javascript, css and layout complexity entirely. They use it, and enjoy it, and it brings value to their lives. Insisting that the web is wrong, that most of the people using it are wrong to accept it, that most of the creative decisions made in it are wrong for even attempting to design it, that every possible use of javascript is wrong by definition, and that the only "proper" web is one in which simple, static text documents be allowed to exist is, yes, "really that bad."
- tenfingers 11y ago
  I think you're conflating too many things in your argument. I'm not against evolution, and there's plenty of good uses for most of the recent browser developments in the last decade. Heck, I love what you can do in interactive python notebooks, and there's plenty of very successful pages that use modern technologies at their finest. But it's a very small minority. So small, in fact, that a "whitelist-based" approach, such as disabling webfonts everywhere but selected sites, has a net-positive effect: it also works on the websites that choose good fonts, because those websites are ironically also the websites that gracefully degrade and/or use html semantically. Similarly for other features. Many websites, to put it simply, are simply "badly styled" (I don't like to use "designed", because designed would imply some tuning based on a real usage pattern). I also don't think that users that think that way are in minority: it cannot be that "reader" extensions (which do - in essence - exactly what has been described in the manifesto!) got bundled into browsers as a selling point. If there was no need, they wouldn't be bundled at all. Clearly, there are some non-insignificant amount of people that see this as a plus.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Fair enough - it's impossible to argue that the backlash isn't due to a real phenomenon. Although, browsers also ship with developer tools so I don't know how widely used the reader mode is, or whether it's targeted at a general audience or the tech audience. Most of the (admittedly anecdotal) complaints I see on social media sites have to do more with changing the UI around and messing with people's expectations than with poor fonts or loading times, or javascript.

jalfresi 11y ago

Aww man, that was would be amazing. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic :(

eddd 11y ago
I wasn't sarcastic, I am just pointing out that most of the shiny single-page apps don't have to be shiny whatsoever. Take stooq.com for example, I am using it because is reliable, fast and clean - but it still looks like from early 90'. The thing is, many companies decide to use fancy technologies/solution to bump theirs market value - it is not a way to go, but you cant change the environment. What's more - It is quite often a managers call to say 'we need our site to be cutting-edge', so they pick angular, react, whatever just because other companies do it.