5 ms·

Sure. If you believe that the browser should only be a document reader and not an application platform then go ahead. It's kinda like buying a smartphone and th

Sure. If you believe that the browser should only be a document reader and not an application platform then go ahead. It's kinda like buying a smartphone and then using it exclusively as a phone though.... I think the real point of irritation here is all the 3rd party junk that gets loaded in that has nothing to do with the main functionality of the site that you are on.

pvdebbe 11y ago
I think that simple content such as blogs, news and the equivalent should not be implemented in js-dependent web apps. Web browsers are a platform for sure, but the simple content should stay simple.
- e2e8 11y ago
  It have thought for a while now that the web and correspondingly the browser should be bifurcated into a content platform with no client side code and an application platform without the burden of the older technologies. The browser would provide all the interactivity and logic for the content platform through implementations of standard html tags. For the application platform, the browser could provide a more convenient set of apis sort of like plugins did before.
  - HappyTypist 11y ago
    Yes, because a blog post should disappear or be unable to be scrolled if my cellular reception drops out for 10 seconds.
  - TimJYoung 11y ago
    I can't agree more. I was just saying something similar in the thread on mobile JS framework loading performance. The browser has reached a critical stage where the Jekyll/Hide impersonation has got to stop. There needs to be separate modes in the browser, application/content, or there needs to be separate browsers. The evolution of JS as a decorative language has reached its ultimate end: it's no longer just decorative and instead is now devouring and devaluing the host content it was supposed to originally enhance. But, at the same time, it's usefulness for zero-install client-side applications cannot be ignored and it needs a platform also.
  - tommorris 11y ago
    In practice: Developer: "Well, we can either build our website in document mode or in application mode." Management: "What's the difference?" Developer: "If we build it in document mode, it loads quickly and cleanly and..." Management: "Does document mode let us put the modal popover window that got 5% of our visitors to join our newsletter last month?" Developer: "Well, nope." Management: "And the third party tracker?" Developer: "Again, no." Management: "So we can't monetize or track how many sticky eyeballs are consuming our content?" Developer: "Nope." Management: "App mode it is." Developer: "But it isn't an app. It's just static pages." Management: "APP APP APP APP APP APP. I hear you can go on a course to build apps in less than a week." Developer: starts checking his LinkedIn for an employer who doesn't make him want to take a pickaxe to his own face
dave2000 11y ago
I believe the browser should be exactly what it is, without using javascript. I'll always block javascript, whitelisting sites which 1) fail to work without it and 2) which i really want to visit. If you need javascript to present information then you're either not a very good developer or else you don't care about the user experience. Degrade gracefully; you can still display text and images without javascript and a lot of people don't want a lot of high-risk fluff just because you're proud of your use of add-ons.
- TimJYoung 11y ago
  That's fine, but there is still a place for JS-only applications on the web. For example, we produce a web application development IDE that emits JS-only applications (HTML just bootstraps the JS). The things you can do with such applications are numerous, and are the backbone of a lot of SAAS offerings. However, our company web site doesn't use any JS (other than the Google Analytics hook), and it loads/runs like a dream on any device/browser. The point here is that there is a rationale for both modes of operation (content vs. application), and maybe, like another commenter noted here, it's just time to bite the bullet and separate out the two use cases in a more forceful and clear manner.
annnnd 11y ago
Excellent comparison! Except - no, it's like buying a smartphone and expecting it can still be used as a phone. I want both an application platform and a document reader. Too many pages obscure content by showing ads, showing annoying popups (no I don't want your newsletter!) and by wasting screen estate on some "float on the top" menu you can't get rid of. The thing I miss most on my smartphone is NoScript. Luckily Firefox has "reader mode" which helps a lot, but it sometimes doesn't show whole content.
vanderZwan 11y ago
> I think the real point of irritation here is all the 3rd party junk that gets loaded in that has nothing to do with the main functionality of the site that you are on. First, while I agree with this being the biggest issue, there is a little bit of nuance to your other point. > If you believe that the browser should only be a document reader and not an application platform then go ahead The thing is, the overwhelming majority of those applications are glorified document readers, with a bit of social media plug ins thrown in. It features rich media perhaps, but you don't need JavaScript for an image or video tag. Of the remaining applications, the majority of use-cases is forms to send over the web. This can often be enhanced by JavaScript, but is also not that insane in terms of needs. Then we get to the remaining use-cases of the "application platform". There's also the part where most websites are just plain badly designed. For example, many sites that have a video that auto-plays when you open it, even if you open a text article and the video is totally unrelated to what you were watching. Worse, some of them even tend to autoplay to a new video, often redirecting your webpage, interrupting the reading experience. Sure, I can pause. It still downloads and buffers a video I never intend to watch. Similarly, whatever happened to progressive enhancement? Websites that give you a blank page unless you download three megabytes of JavaScript. WTH.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  «Similarly, whatever happened to progressive enhancement?» In one word: Frameworks. In more words: Building HTML in two different places is typically not very DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and if you are assuming a lot of very dynamic content that want to update on the fly from the JS side of things all the way down to micromanaging the HTML generation at run time, well then all of your HTML building moves into JS to keep things DRY. The hope for the future is so-called "Universal" JS (which is interesting in that its kind of circling back to the origins of JS (LiveScript Server) and ASP Classic): now that we have a somewhat standardized JS platform on the server side (NodeJS) we can use the same JS to build HTML on the server or in the client...

pvdebbe 11y ago

I think that simple content such as blogs, news and the equivalent should not be implemented in js-dependent web apps. Web browsers are a platform for sure, but the simple content should stay simple.

e2e8 11y ago
It have thought for a while now that the web and correspondingly the browser should be bifurcated into a content platform with no client side code and an application platform without the burden of the older technologies. The browser would provide all the interactivity and logic for the content platform through implementations of standard html tags. For the application platform, the browser could provide a more convenient set of apis sort of like plugins did before.
- HappyTypist 11y ago
  Yes, because a blog post should disappear or be unable to be scrolled if my cellular reception drops out for 10 seconds.
- TimJYoung 11y ago
  I can't agree more. I was just saying something similar in the thread on mobile JS framework loading performance. The browser has reached a critical stage where the Jekyll/Hide impersonation has got to stop. There needs to be separate modes in the browser, application/content, or there needs to be separate browsers. The evolution of JS as a decorative language has reached its ultimate end: it's no longer just decorative and instead is now devouring and devaluing the host content it was supposed to originally enhance. But, at the same time, it's usefulness for zero-install client-side applications cannot be ignored and it needs a platform also.
- tommorris 11y ago
  In practice: Developer: "Well, we can either build our website in document mode or in application mode." Management: "What's the difference?" Developer: "If we build it in document mode, it loads quickly and cleanly and..." Management: "Does document mode let us put the modal popover window that got 5% of our visitors to join our newsletter last month?" Developer: "Well, nope." Management: "And the third party tracker?" Developer: "Again, no." Management: "So we can't monetize or track how many sticky eyeballs are consuming our content?" Developer: "Nope." Management: "App mode it is." Developer: "But it isn't an app. It's just static pages." Management: "APP APP APP APP APP APP. I hear you can go on a course to build apps in less than a week." Developer: starts checking his LinkedIn for an employer who doesn't make him want to take a pickaxe to his own face

dave2000 11y ago

I believe the browser should be exactly what it is, without using javascript. I'll always block javascript, whitelisting sites which 1) fail to work without it and 2) which i really want to visit. If you need javascript to present information then you're either not a very good developer or else you don't care about the user experience. Degrade gracefully; you can still display text and images without javascript and a lot of people don't want a lot of high-risk fluff just because you're proud of your use of add-ons.

TimJYoung 11y ago
That's fine, but there is still a place for JS-only applications on the web. For example, we produce a web application development IDE that emits JS-only applications (HTML just bootstraps the JS). The things you can do with such applications are numerous, and are the backbone of a lot of SAAS offerings. However, our company web site doesn't use any JS (other than the Google Analytics hook), and it loads/runs like a dream on any device/browser. The point here is that there is a rationale for both modes of operation (content vs. application), and maybe, like another commenter noted here, it's just time to bite the bullet and separate out the two use cases in a more forceful and clear manner.

annnnd 11y ago

Excellent comparison! Except - no, it's like buying a smartphone and expecting it can still be used as a phone. I want both an application platform and a document reader. Too many pages obscure content by showing ads, showing annoying popups (no I don't want your newsletter!) and by wasting screen estate on some "float on the top" menu you can't get rid of. The thing I miss most on my smartphone is NoScript. Luckily Firefox has "reader mode" which helps a lot, but it sometimes doesn't show whole content.

vanderZwan 11y ago

> I think the real point of irritation here is all the 3rd party junk that gets loaded in that has nothing to do with the main functionality of the site that you are on. First, while I agree with this being the biggest issue, there is a little bit of nuance to your other point. > If you believe that the browser should only be a document reader and not an application platform then go ahead The thing is, the overwhelming majority of those applications are glorified document readers, with a bit of social media plug ins thrown in. It features rich media perhaps, but you don't need JavaScript for an image or video tag. Of the remaining applications, the majority of use-cases is forms to send over the web. This can often be enhanced by JavaScript, but is also not that insane in terms of needs. Then we get to the remaining use-cases of the "application platform". There's also the part where most websites are just plain badly designed. For example, many sites that have a video that auto-plays when you open it, even if you open a text article and the video is totally unrelated to what you were watching. Worse, some of them even tend to autoplay to a new video, often redirecting your webpage, interrupting the reading experience. Sure, I can pause. It still downloads and buffers a video I never intend to watch. Similarly, whatever happened to progressive enhancement? Websites that give you a blank page unless you download three megabytes of JavaScript. WTH.

WorldMaker 11y ago
«Similarly, whatever happened to progressive enhancement?» In one word: Frameworks. In more words: Building HTML in two different places is typically not very DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and if you are assuming a lot of very dynamic content that want to update on the fly from the JS side of things all the way down to micromanaging the HTML generation at run time, well then all of your HTML building moves into JS to keep things DRY. The hope for the future is so-called "Universal" JS (which is interesting in that its kind of circling back to the origins of JS (LiveScript Server) and ASP Classic): now that we have a somewhat standardized JS platform on the server side (NodeJS) we can use the same JS to build HTML on the server or in the client...