6 ms·

It's not just security, the other half is usability. The way popular web sites work is that they change stuff around regularly only to make it look different bu

by cm3 10y ago

It's not just security, the other half is usability. The way popular web sites work is that they change stuff around regularly only to make it look different but change the behavior as well. This breaks stuff like existing functionality, key+mouse sequences to get stuff done, places you've learned to look at and navigate to quickly. Computers and modern appliances (including cars) are strangely affected by this constant desire to shift things around unnecessarily because someone told them they could sell it as it looks different now. GitHub and gmail are prime examples for sites that broke a lot of things in the process. Maybe what we need instead are real APIs and custom clients.

kbenson 10y ago
Consider the implications of what this means though. If sites are not free to innovate, things like Github and Gmail wouldn't exist. They only reason we aren't stuck with a Hotmail interface circa 2002 is because people were able to innovate on the web. To lock down CSS (or Javascript, there's no reason I can think of you would lock CSS and not Javascript) to a specific set of capabilities is both a statement that it is sufficient for all needs, and that we can decide by committee what is a good set of standards to lock into. I think both assertions are laughable false. If we had locked down CSS five years ago, what CSS would be not be capable of using today? If we lock it down today, what would we be missing out on that would come five years from now? Design by committee is horribly inefficient, and rarely takes into consideration the full needs of the users. What's more, it can't take into consideration future needs. Design by committee gets us XML. Adoption by iteration and evolution gets us JSON. XML has its place, but JSON is overwhelmingly more popular in certain contexts for a reason, it fits the domain better. Lastly, iterating on Github and Gmail would not stop even if there was a complete lack of CSS and Javascript, it would just be more tedious as everything was done through a full page serve, just like the old days. That wouldn't prevent site redesigns along with missing or broken features, it would just make everything look shittier, perform slower, and use more server side resources. That said, a sane standard for embedded interfaces, where choice is restricted, it needs to live a long time, and needs to have sane accessibility features would do well with better standards. I view that as a separate problem.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  The fact of standard templates needn't prevent the possibility of novel templates. But it ought make the prospect slightly more user-controllable. Design-by-committee isn't the alternative to design-by-fuckwits, the present mode. Github and Gmail are both tools which now face the dilemma of gratuitous changes -- many of the recent innovations haven't done much for usability, for numerous reasons (familiarity itself is a key factor, GUI offers limited capacity for improved functionality, jwz has commented on this from his Mozilla experiences). But most changes to default styles are pants. Hell, much the problem is that default styles are pants. If browsers had a set of presentation styles that did work well (see the "readability" modes offered by Safari, Firefox, Readability, Pocket, Instapaper, etc.), then we'd have slightly less a problem. Github, Gmail, Google Maps, etc., are largely the exception to long-form informational content pages. I'm OK with an explicit "app mode" for such sites. But 99.999999% of what I read would do vastly better with uniform presentation. More attention to content and semantic construction. Less to layout frippery. Something tells me you'll not be convinced.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > The fact of standard templates needn't prevent the possibility of novel templates. If your stance is "provide well established default templates, but don't enforce their use", then I have no disagreement. That's not how I interpreted "I've considered what might be necessary to dispose of server-side CSS." > Github, Gmail, Google Maps, etc., are largely the exception to long-form informational content pages. I'm OK with an explicit "app mode" for such sites. But 99.999999% of what I read would do vastly better with uniform presentation. I think that depends heavily on what you use the web for. You and I likely read a lot on the web. Some people might stick largely to Facebook and Gmail. There are people that spend a lot of time in Github, and others that spend very little. Some people use a lot of online organizational and collaboration tools, others none. > More attention to content and semantic construction. Less to layout frippery. What you call layout frippery, someone else desires. This sounds suspiciously like remaking the web for your use cases, not for general use cases (which are always changing). But I'm not sure there's even a problem to address, you already addressed through referencing "readability modes" as an example of presentation styles that do work well. Why isn't that your solution to this perceived problem? It feels like you're trying to achieve the equivalent of forcing all the printers to agree to not print magazines that don't conform to someone's opinion of what a good magazine is. I'm just not sure why that's even desirable. > Something tells me you'll not be convinced. No, not yet, if I understand your position correctly.

by cm3 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

Consider the implications of what this means though. If sites are not free to innovate, things like Github and Gmail wouldn't exist. They only reason we aren't stuck with a Hotmail interface circa 2002 is because people were able to innovate on the web. To lock down CSS (or Javascript, there's no reason I can think of you would lock CSS and not Javascript) to a specific set of capabilities is both a statement that it is sufficient for all needs, and that we can decide by committee what is a good set of standards to lock into. I think both assertions are laughable false. If we had locked down CSS five years ago, what CSS would be not be capable of using today? If we lock it down today, what would we be missing out on that would come five years from now? Design by committee is horribly inefficient, and rarely takes into consideration the full needs of the users. What's more, it can't take into consideration future needs. Design by committee gets us XML. Adoption by iteration and evolution gets us JSON. XML has its place, but JSON is overwhelmingly more popular in certain contexts for a reason, it fits the domain better. Lastly, iterating on Github and Gmail would not stop even if there was a complete lack of CSS and Javascript, it would just be more tedious as everything was done through a full page serve, just like the old days. That wouldn't prevent site redesigns along with missing or broken features, it would just make everything look shittier, perform slower, and use more server side resources. That said, a sane standard for embedded interfaces, where choice is restricted, it needs to live a long time, and needs to have sane accessibility features would do well with better standards. I view that as a separate problem.

dredmorbius 10y ago
The fact of standard templates needn't prevent the possibility of novel templates. But it ought make the prospect slightly more user-controllable. Design-by-committee isn't the alternative to design-by-fuckwits, the present mode. Github and Gmail are both tools which now face the dilemma of gratuitous changes -- many of the recent innovations haven't done much for usability, for numerous reasons (familiarity itself is a key factor, GUI offers limited capacity for improved functionality, jwz has commented on this from his Mozilla experiences). But most changes to default styles are pants. Hell, much the problem is that default styles are pants. If browsers had a set of presentation styles that did work well (see the "readability" modes offered by Safari, Firefox, Readability, Pocket, Instapaper, etc.), then we'd have slightly less a problem. Github, Gmail, Google Maps, etc., are largely the exception to long-form informational content pages. I'm OK with an explicit "app mode" for such sites. But 99.999999% of what I read would do vastly better with uniform presentation. More attention to content and semantic construction. Less to layout frippery. Something tells me you'll not be convinced.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > The fact of standard templates needn't prevent the possibility of novel templates. If your stance is "provide well established default templates, but don't enforce their use", then I have no disagreement. That's not how I interpreted "I've considered what might be necessary to dispose of server-side CSS." > Github, Gmail, Google Maps, etc., are largely the exception to long-form informational content pages. I'm OK with an explicit "app mode" for such sites. But 99.999999% of what I read would do vastly better with uniform presentation. I think that depends heavily on what you use the web for. You and I likely read a lot on the web. Some people might stick largely to Facebook and Gmail. There are people that spend a lot of time in Github, and others that spend very little. Some people use a lot of online organizational and collaboration tools, others none. > More attention to content and semantic construction. Less to layout frippery. What you call layout frippery, someone else desires. This sounds suspiciously like remaking the web for your use cases, not for general use cases (which are always changing). But I'm not sure there's even a problem to address, you already addressed through referencing "readability modes" as an example of presentation styles that do work well. Why isn't that your solution to this perceived problem? It feels like you're trying to achieve the equivalent of forcing all the printers to agree to not print magazines that don't conform to someone's opinion of what a good magazine is. I'm just not sure why that's even desirable. > Something tells me you'll not be convinced. No, not yet, if I understand your position correctly.