4 ms·

Is there any research about whether users prefer web "applications" (SPAs and everything related) or good old web pages?[1] Hackernews and sites similar to this

Is there any research about whether users prefer web "applications" (SPAs and everything related) or good old web pages?[1] Hackernews and sites similar to this work on pretty much all browsers and devices. So, other than clients wanting to put big CSS banners and animations and using bootstrap and The Theme™[2], is there any valid reason to intentionally bloatify a page? Edit: Sorry for not being clear, I meant websites where SPAs are not required, and plain old websites would do. In other words, do users (unconsciously?) prefer eye-candy over readability? [1]: The benefits which users will prefer "applications" for like progressive enhancement with offline first thingy isn't here yet, and virtually no one is using it in real life. So please don't count on that yet. [2]: http://adventurega.me/bootstrap/# http://adventurega.me/bootstrap/#

thedz 10y ago
I think it's going to vary wildly to what the website actually does. Something like Gmail or Slack? I'm probably going to be happier with a (well-constructed!) SPA. If managing state across things is important to the core functionality of the site, then use the paradigm that's appropriate.
- stephengillie 10y ago
  The ticketing part of Zendesk is a tabbed SPA of sorts, while the help center is a wiki-style set of webpages. It works well.
e12e 10y ago
While I personally prefer HN to many similar forum software, I actually think it's not the best example for "plain web site". Partly because of the very real (sometimes intentional) UX issues, like no native collapsing of threads, and the silly voting-arrows that almost impossible to use on any device -- and partly because HN sits (IMNHO) a bit between the simple/old and the new. A better example of "plain web forum" might be the D-lang forums: http://forum.dlang.org http://forum.dlang.org That said, I never liked web forums in general - I prefer mailing lists (and the D-lang forum, as far as I can figure out, support usenet access (is a web usenet front-end) - so it should be possible use a native client rather than a web gateway -- which might be better. But as the web has shown again and again, colourful backgrounds, smilies and avatars wrapped up in sloppy html and css wins every time - multimedia wins every time. Eg: slack. I think it should be perfectly viable, and desirable, to meet both: an open (preferably federated/self-hostable) (set of) protocol(s) - a web client - and native clients. For me, the fact that I don't really thing gmail is any good, is kind of the only nail the "web app" coffin needs -- if Google can't make something half-way ok to work with in terms of UX -- for something that's arguably simple -- what hope does anyone else have? As for your real question: I think wikipedia is a great example of both "it can be simple" and "complex provides value". Reading wikipedia works fine from lynx or w3m - but editing, viewing revisions, etc - benefits a lot from a richer "web app" client. (I would still prefer to edit in vim, use "real" version control and push changes - and I'm not sure what options are there for wikipedia, the project, or mediawiki, the software, to do that via apis etc -- but I'm sure it'd be possible to hook something up if it's not already there - I haven't really looked).

thedz 10y ago

I think it's going to vary wildly to what the website actually does. Something like Gmail or Slack? I'm probably going to be happier with a (well-constructed!) SPA. If managing state across things is important to the core functionality of the site, then use the paradigm that's appropriate.

stephengillie 10y ago
The ticketing part of Zendesk is a tabbed SPA of sorts, while the help center is a wiki-style set of webpages. It works well.

e12e 10y ago

While I personally prefer HN to many similar forum software, I actually think it's not the best example for "plain web site". Partly because of the very real (sometimes intentional) UX issues, like no native collapsing of threads, and the silly voting-arrows that almost impossible to use on any device -- and partly because HN sits (IMNHO) a bit between the simple/old and the new. A better example of "plain web forum" might be the D-lang forums: http://forum.dlang.org http://forum.dlang.org That said, I never liked web forums in general - I prefer mailing lists (and the D-lang forum, as far as I can figure out, support usenet access (is a web usenet front-end) - so it should be possible use a native client rather than a web gateway -- which might be better. But as the web has shown again and again, colourful backgrounds, smilies and avatars wrapped up in sloppy html and css wins every time - multimedia wins every time. Eg: slack. I think it should be perfectly viable, and desirable, to meet both: an open (preferably federated/self-hostable) (set of) protocol(s) - a web client - and native clients. For me, the fact that I don't really thing gmail is any good, is kind of the only nail the "web app" coffin needs -- if Google can't make something half-way ok to work with in terms of UX -- for something that's arguably simple -- what hope does anyone else have? As for your real question: I think wikipedia is a great example of both "it can be simple" and "complex provides value". Reading wikipedia works fine from lynx or w3m - but editing, viewing revisions, etc - benefits a lot from a richer "web app" client. (I would still prefer to edit in vim, use "real" version control and push changes - and I'm not sure what options are there for wikipedia, the project, or mediawiki, the software, to do that via apis etc -- but I'm sure it'd be possible to hook something up if it's not already there - I haven't really looked).