4 ms·

The users don't want a site. They want an app. It's like expecting the developers of the latest, greatest PC game to write a progressively enhanced game that

by snarfy 11y ago

The users don't want a site. They want an app. It's like expecting the developers of the latest, greatest PC game to write a progressively enhanced game that the same executable will run on DOS 1.0 all the way to the latest Windows version. They will spend time and resources on making sure it works with DOS 1.0, even though there are next to zero users for it, making it completely uneconomical, basically working for free. Or you can have them click the download Chrome/Firefox link.

furfish 11y ago
The reason many users are using Opera Mini is to use less data and to load pages faster. An app won't scratch that itch. -posted using Opera Mini
- Natanael_L 11y ago
  Chrome on Android offers proxy compression too
  - seba_dos1 11y ago
    Which is absolutely uncomparable. Opera Mini's approach is pretty unique.
huuu 11y ago
Clients/designers want apps. Users want information. The trend today is that sites are crashing my up-to-date Firefox browser[1] because they need a ton of Javascript to get the layout right. I don't mind a fancy site but just let me get the information I need. [1] I own a not so new smart phone that does the job well for everything else.
StavrosK 11y ago
No, sorry, when I visit the Next Web, for example, I don't want 600 kilobytes of CSS and JS just to look at what's basically a list of photos and some text. That is insane by any measure, and I'm not even counting the photos (as they're necessary and there's not much to do about those). It seems to all be there so the site can be a wonder of mystery meat navigation, with clicks randomly bringing elements in and out of focus and taking me to random sites I didn't ask for. As a moderately seasoned developer, I've seen this in my friends too (you know who you are). They get excited by the latest and greatest technology (which is great and they should) and they apply it to their business without first asking themselves if it's actually beneficial (which is bad and they shouldn't). Most of them come around to "build it simple at first and optimize later", or YAGNI, but in the mean time, we get things like The Next Web. $5 TNW's next iteration is plain HTML and simple CSS with a minimal amount of JS and they make a big thing out of how performant their site is now, loading instantly, etc. Good job, you discovered Web 1.0 again, but this time with better designers.
- kps 11y ago
  > TNW's next iteration … loading instantly e.g. https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/
chriswarbo 11y ago
> It's like expecting the developers of the latest, greatest PC game to write a progressively enhanced game that the same executable will run on DOS 1.0 all the way to the latest Windows version. They will spend time and resources on making sure it works with DOS 1.0, even though there are next to zero users for it, making it completely uneconomical, basically working for free. Games aren't a fair comparison; very few sites are anything like games, and gaming has always been pushing the boundaries of technology. A more favourable comparison would be shipping a "content reader app", based on Windows Metro APIs, when a plaintext file would do just fine (and would work on MSDOS 1.0, if it were ASCII).

by snarfy 11y ago

furfish 11y ago

The reason many users are using Opera Mini is to use less data and to load pages faster. An app won't scratch that itch. -posted using Opera Mini

Natanael_L 11y ago
Chrome on Android offers proxy compression too
- seba_dos1 11y ago
  Which is absolutely uncomparable. Opera Mini's approach is pretty unique.

huuu 11y ago

Clients/designers want apps. Users want information. The trend today is that sites are crashing my up-to-date Firefox browser[1] because they need a ton of Javascript to get the layout right. I don't mind a fancy site but just let me get the information I need. [1] I own a not so new smart phone that does the job well for everything else.

StavrosK 11y ago

No, sorry, when I visit the Next Web, for example, I don't want 600 kilobytes of CSS and JS just to look at what's basically a list of photos and some text. That is insane by any measure, and I'm not even counting the photos (as they're necessary and there's not much to do about those). It seems to all be there so the site can be a wonder of mystery meat navigation, with clicks randomly bringing elements in and out of focus and taking me to random sites I didn't ask for. As a moderately seasoned developer, I've seen this in my friends too (you know who you are). They get excited by the latest and greatest technology (which is great and they should) and they apply it to their business without first asking themselves if it's actually beneficial (which is bad and they shouldn't). Most of them come around to "build it simple at first and optimize later", or YAGNI, but in the mean time, we get things like The Next Web. $5 TNW's next iteration is plain HTML and simple CSS with a minimal amount of JS and they make a big thing out of how performant their site is now, loading instantly, etc. Good job, you discovered Web 1.0 again, but this time with better designers.

kps 11y ago
> TNW's next iteration … loading instantly e.g. https://www.ampproject.org/ https://www.ampproject.org/

chriswarbo 11y ago

> It's like expecting the developers of the latest, greatest PC game to write a progressively enhanced game that the same executable will run on DOS 1.0 all the way to the latest Windows version. They will spend time and resources on making sure it works with DOS 1.0, even though there are next to zero users for it, making it completely uneconomical, basically working for free. Games aren't a fair comparison; very few sites are anything like games, and gaming has always been pushing the boundaries of technology. A more favourable comparison would be shipping a "content reader app", based on Windows Metro APIs, when a plaintext file would do just fine (and would work on MSDOS 1.0, if it were ASCII).