5 ms·

Well, I don't know about the API, but that's certainly the worst blog software ever made, requiring me to enable JavaScript and execute code in order to read so

by wtbob 10y ago

Well, I don't know about the API, but that's certainly the worst blog software ever made, requiring me to enable JavaScript and execute code in order to read some simple HTML and CSS. Why‽

aforty 10y ago
Reading his site on an iPhone is nearly impossible.
- dclowd9901 10y ago
  Push that button in the uri area that has a bunch of horizontal lines
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Reader mode doesn't "trigger" for this site.
- dingo_bat 10y ago
  The text was a bit small but I could easily read it on my Galaxy.
bjacobel 10y ago
Perhaps consider that coming on here and being condescending about the impact your own browsing habits have on the web experience of your (very small, but very vocal) JavaScript-disabling demographic makes the rest of us web developers really not very interested in building sites that meet your demands. I agree that the site shouldn't need JavaScript to function, but I don't think comments like these help the goal of helping the content creators achieve progressive enhancement.
- hghdfgv 10y ago
  Constructive criticism is a good thing.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    Yes. This, however, isn't it.
    - nicky0 10y ago
      And yet, nobody has provided an answer the question: why?
      - dang 10y ago
        Because it was snarky and off topic in a classic bikeshedding way, making for uninteresting discussion.
- karim 10y ago
  OP is a bit excessive but he's right --- this website doesn't work for people without JavaScript or on mobile phones.
  - dpark 10y ago
    I read the entire article on my cell phone. The only problem I had (not sure what's causing this) is that if I accidentally selected text, it would jump to the top of the page, selecting everything along the way.
- nicky0 10y ago
  Not condescending, just critical.
modarts 10y ago
People still disable JS in 2016? I take it that 80%+ of the web is horribly broken for you guys.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > People still disable JS in 2016? I take it that 80%+ of the web is horribly broken for you guys. Yeah, it is — but it's better to have to enable JavaScript on a one-by-one basis when desired that to travel across the Internet executing random code and impairing one's privacy. Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Others require JavaScript to use the correct font. What's wrong with CSS? Still others require JavaScript to show text. What's wrong with HTML? Still others require JavaScript to build links. What's wrong with <a>? JavaScript is destroying the Web. What was a powerful technology for disseminating formatted text across the world has become a cobbled-together GUI held together with baling wire and twine.
  - mediumdeviation 10y ago
    > Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Because trifecta of retina (hi-dpi) displays, responsive design (use the same code for both mobile and desktop) and miserly bandwidth caps, (especially on mobile networks), means that traditional <img> tags won't do it any more. <picture> is designed to help with this - and I'm pleasantly surprised to find that it has landed in a surprising number of browsers http://caniuse.com/#feat= http://caniuse.com/#feat= picture - but you'll still need a polyfill, which is if course JavaScript. Pages with a lot of images also use lazy loading to reduce bandwidth usage even further. Of course a <noscript> should be included, but it's getting harder and harder to make the claim that it is economical to support people without JS.
  - atomwaffel 10y ago
    > Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Lazy loading. By default, browsers will load all images as soon as the page loads. If you have a long article with potentially megabytes of images, this behaviour will seriously slow down the initial load, and many readers who jump early will still download a bunch of images that they never see. That's why many sites only load images as they are about to appear, but to do that, you can't use regular <img> tags. You're right in that JavaScript shouldn't be a requirement though. A good implementation will provide a regular <img> inside a <noscript> tag. > Others require JavaScript to use the correct font. What's wrong with CSS? Avoiding "flashes of invisible text"[1] when using web fonts. Unfortunately, different browsers have very different strategies for loading web fonts. Some of them will wait for the web font to load at any cost rather than showing a fallback font in the meantime. This means that you can be stuck for ages with everything in place except for the text, which is seriously irritating. I've never implemented FOIT mitigation myself, but I assume that you could (and should) again provide a fallback in a <noscript> tag. Even without it, the text will at least still display without JavaScript, just in the second font in the font stack. [1] https://css-tricks.com/fout-foit-foft/ https://css-tricks.com/fout-foit-foft/
itsuart 10y ago
Casey said in one of the J&C shows that he tried to do the site in HTML & CSS but ragequit and wrote it in C.

by wtbob 10y ago

Well, I don't know about the API, but that's certainly the worst blog software ever made, requiring me to enable JavaScript and execute code in order to read some simple HTML and CSS. Why‽

aforty 10y ago

Reading his site on an iPhone is nearly impossible.

dclowd9901 10y ago
Push that button in the uri area that has a bunch of horizontal lines
- stephenr 10y ago
  Reader mode doesn't "trigger" for this site.
dingo_bat 10y ago
The text was a bit small but I could easily read it on my Galaxy.

bjacobel 10y ago

Perhaps consider that coming on here and being condescending about the impact your own browsing habits have on the web experience of your (very small, but very vocal) JavaScript-disabling demographic makes the rest of us web developers really not very interested in building sites that meet your demands. I agree that the site shouldn't need JavaScript to function, but I don't think comments like these help the goal of helping the content creators achieve progressive enhancement.

hghdfgv 10y ago
Constructive criticism is a good thing.
- mseebach 10y ago
  Yes. This, however, isn't it.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    And yet, nobody has provided an answer the question: why?
    - dang 10y ago
      Because it was snarky and off topic in a classic bikeshedding way, making for uninteresting discussion.
karim 10y ago
OP is a bit excessive but he's right --- this website doesn't work for people without JavaScript or on mobile phones.
- dpark 10y ago
  I read the entire article on my cell phone. The only problem I had (not sure what's causing this) is that if I accidentally selected text, it would jump to the top of the page, selecting everything along the way.
nicky0 10y ago
Not condescending, just critical.

modarts 10y ago

People still disable JS in 2016? I take it that 80%+ of the web is horribly broken for you guys.

zeveb 10y ago
> People still disable JS in 2016? I take it that 80%+ of the web is horribly broken for you guys. Yeah, it is — but it's better to have to enable JavaScript on a one-by-one basis when desired that to travel across the Internet executing random code and impairing one's privacy. Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Others require JavaScript to use the correct font. What's wrong with CSS? Still others require JavaScript to show text. What's wrong with HTML? Still others require JavaScript to build links. What's wrong with <a>? JavaScript is destroying the Web. What was a powerful technology for disseminating formatted text across the world has become a cobbled-together GUI held together with baling wire and twine.
- mediumdeviation 10y ago
  > Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Because trifecta of retina (hi-dpi) displays, responsive design (use the same code for both mobile and desktop) and miserly bandwidth caps, (especially on mobile networks), means that traditional <img> tags won't do it any more. <picture> is designed to help with this - and I'm pleasantly surprised to find that it has landed in a surprising number of browsers http://caniuse.com/#feat= http://caniuse.com/#feat= picture - but you'll still need a polyfill, which is if course JavaScript. Pages with a lot of images also use lazy loading to reduce bandwidth usage even further. Of course a <noscript> should be included, but it's getting harder and harder to make the claim that it is economical to support people without JS.
- atomwaffel 10y ago
  > Some websites require JavaScript to display images nowadays. What's wrong with <img>? Lazy loading. By default, browsers will load all images as soon as the page loads. If you have a long article with potentially megabytes of images, this behaviour will seriously slow down the initial load, and many readers who jump early will still download a bunch of images that they never see. That's why many sites only load images as they are about to appear, but to do that, you can't use regular <img> tags. You're right in that JavaScript shouldn't be a requirement though. A good implementation will provide a regular <img> inside a <noscript> tag. > Others require JavaScript to use the correct font. What's wrong with CSS? Avoiding "flashes of invisible text"[1] when using web fonts. Unfortunately, different browsers have very different strategies for loading web fonts. Some of them will wait for the web font to load at any cost rather than showing a fallback font in the meantime. This means that you can be stuck for ages with everything in place except for the text, which is seriously irritating. I've never implemented FOIT mitigation myself, but I assume that you could (and should) again provide a fallback in a <noscript> tag. Even without it, the text will at least still display without JavaScript, just in the second font in the font stack. [1] https://css-tricks.com/fout-foit-foft/ https://css-tricks.com/fout-foit-foft/

itsuart 10y ago

Casey said in one of the J&C shows that he tried to do the site in HTML & CSS but ragequit and wrote it in C.