4 ms·

While it's possible I'm not understanding some important aspect of invoice generation, I don't believe JavaScript is necessary for this process... Plain HTML fo

While it's possible I'm not understanding some important aspect of invoice generation, I don't believe JavaScript is necessary for this process... Plain HTML form inputs -> Server -> Generate PDF? What am I missing? Why's JavaScript required here? I think we forget that the web was a pretty productive thing even before JavaScript was widely used. GMail existed (and still does) in a javascript-free form. You can even use Google Maps without JavaScript. Granted, JavaScript enhances both experiences, but it's not strictly required.

Scarbutt 9y ago
Granted, JavaScript enhances both experiences, but it's not strictly required. Yep, Javascript is not strictly required but that was what I was trying to refer to, the enhancement part. A blog or news site like HN doesn't really need much enhancements, a web app for invoices lends itself to be way more interactive than HN. In your gmail example, the HTML version doesn't have: Chat Spell checker Keyboard shortcuts Adding or importing contacts Custom "from" addresses Rich formatting
- chriswarbo 9y ago
  > In your gmail example, the HTML version doesn't have: > Chat > Spell checker > Keyboard shortcuts > Adding or importing contacts > Custom "from" addresses > Rich formatting Sounds excellent. I might give the Gmail Web interface another go (I've always used it through POP and IMAP in Emacs, due to monstrous "features" like these). Whilst I agree in principle with spell checking and keyboard shortcuts, not only does my browser provide both, but Google's poor wheel-reinventing interferes with them (as does that of many other sites, e.g. GitHub). As for the "chat", my experience has been that even nudging one's mouse in the wrong way ends up migrating a gtalk account to "hangouts", which doesn't support XMPP and it's very difficult to undo.
  - chriswarbo 9y ago
    I just tried it and wow, the "HTML-only" GMail is so much more responsive and usable! Unfortunately it still breaks my keyboard shortcuts, so there must still be some pesky Javascript somewhere :(
- pjmlp 9y ago
  For that I use Thunderbird or my Android email client.
- dorgo 9y ago
  JavaScript is like a permission in andoroid or in an addon for the new firefox. If I feel like the website really requires Javascript or benefits greatly by Javascript then I will allow it to use JavaScript. Otherwise I will use the website without Javascript or if it is not usable I will just leave. It's ok to add enhanced features using Javascript. But basic features should work without. If links (<a>) don't work without JavaScript I leave and pick the next search result.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    One has to agree with your sentiment. In addition, I have spelling checked on many sites wherein I do not have javascript active - this is a part of the Mozilla functionality.
betageek 9y ago
There was never a time in the modern web era when JavaScript wasn't widely used. You'd have to go way back pre-2000 to find a time when popular websites didn't use JS at all. The Cambrian explosion of 'Web 2.0' wouldn't have happened without JavaScript and we wouldn't be where we are - doing everything on the server sucked big time, I do not want to go back to party like it's 1996. To use Gmail, the poster boy of Web 2.0, as an example of why sites don't need to use JavaScript is bizarre. It destroyed other webmail sites because it used JS to give users a real GUI mail client on the web - the HTML backup works, but if that was all they'd given us we'd still be on Hotmail.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I thought gmail’s big competitive advantage was giving users 1GB of space instead of 10MB or whatever that other free webmail providers gave us. I don’t recall gmail’s UI being remarkably better.
  - tinus_hn 9y ago
    Also, good spam filtering and alternative access through protocols like imap.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  Web 2.0, which "happened" in late 2004 was mostly about user participation a la Wikipedia, Wordpress, etc. It was about tagging things a la del.icio.us. Some JavaScript was used to do crazy things like show full-size images from clicking a thumbnail or making wysiwyg editors. But these thick-client "Single Page Apps" people build today didn't really take off until Backbone.js became popular in ~2010. Re: Gmail. It won, not because of its slick JavaScript features (really, there weren't many when it came out in 2004). It won because of the impressive (at the time) storage space they gave you.
  - betageek 9y ago
    Although the Wikipedia page may say Web 2.0 was about user generated content and tagging, from a web dev point of view it was about building rich interfaces and using XHR to update content without a full page refresh. Full size images had nothing to do with it. My point is that JavaScript has it place in modern web dev, and saying we should just get rid of it is ridiculous, and not what this article says at all. Gmail won for many reasons, but usability was a big part of it, and it wouldn't be possible to even auto-complete an email address without JavaScript

Scarbutt 9y ago

Granted, JavaScript enhances both experiences, but it's not strictly required. Yep, Javascript is not strictly required but that was what I was trying to refer to, the enhancement part. A blog or news site like HN doesn't really need much enhancements, a web app for invoices lends itself to be way more interactive than HN. In your gmail example, the HTML version doesn't have: Chat Spell checker Keyboard shortcuts Adding or importing contacts Custom "from" addresses Rich formatting

chriswarbo 9y ago
> In your gmail example, the HTML version doesn't have: > Chat > Spell checker > Keyboard shortcuts > Adding or importing contacts > Custom "from" addresses > Rich formatting Sounds excellent. I might give the Gmail Web interface another go (I've always used it through POP and IMAP in Emacs, due to monstrous "features" like these). Whilst I agree in principle with spell checking and keyboard shortcuts, not only does my browser provide both, but Google's poor wheel-reinventing interferes with them (as does that of many other sites, e.g. GitHub). As for the "chat", my experience has been that even nudging one's mouse in the wrong way ends up migrating a gtalk account to "hangouts", which doesn't support XMPP and it's very difficult to undo.
- chriswarbo 9y ago
  I just tried it and wow, the "HTML-only" GMail is so much more responsive and usable! Unfortunately it still breaks my keyboard shortcuts, so there must still be some pesky Javascript somewhere :(
pjmlp 9y ago
For that I use Thunderbird or my Android email client.
dorgo 9y ago
JavaScript is like a permission in andoroid or in an addon for the new firefox. If I feel like the website really requires Javascript or benefits greatly by Javascript then I will allow it to use JavaScript. Otherwise I will use the website without Javascript or if it is not usable I will just leave. It's ok to add enhanced features using Javascript. But basic features should work without. If links (<a>) don't work without JavaScript I leave and pick the next search result.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  One has to agree with your sentiment. In addition, I have spelling checked on many sites wherein I do not have javascript active - this is a part of the Mozilla functionality.

betageek 9y ago

There was never a time in the modern web era when JavaScript wasn't widely used. You'd have to go way back pre-2000 to find a time when popular websites didn't use JS at all. The Cambrian explosion of 'Web 2.0' wouldn't have happened without JavaScript and we wouldn't be where we are - doing everything on the server sucked big time, I do not want to go back to party like it's 1996. To use Gmail, the poster boy of Web 2.0, as an example of why sites don't need to use JavaScript is bizarre. It destroyed other webmail sites because it used JS to give users a real GUI mail client on the web - the HTML backup works, but if that was all they'd given us we'd still be on Hotmail.

mikeash 9y ago
I thought gmail’s big competitive advantage was giving users 1GB of space instead of 10MB or whatever that other free webmail providers gave us. I don’t recall gmail’s UI being remarkably better.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  Also, good spam filtering and alternative access through protocols like imap.
the_gastropod 9y ago
Web 2.0, which "happened" in late 2004 was mostly about user participation a la Wikipedia, Wordpress, etc. It was about tagging things a la del.icio.us. Some JavaScript was used to do crazy things like show full-size images from clicking a thumbnail or making wysiwyg editors. But these thick-client "Single Page Apps" people build today didn't really take off until Backbone.js became popular in ~2010. Re: Gmail. It won, not because of its slick JavaScript features (really, there weren't many when it came out in 2004). It won because of the impressive (at the time) storage space they gave you.
- betageek 9y ago
  Although the Wikipedia page may say Web 2.0 was about user generated content and tagging, from a web dev point of view it was about building rich interfaces and using XHR to update content without a full page refresh. Full size images had nothing to do with it. My point is that JavaScript has it place in modern web dev, and saying we should just get rid of it is ridiculous, and not what this article says at all. Gmail won for many reasons, but usability was a big part of it, and it wouldn't be possible to even auto-complete an email address without JavaScript