3 ms·

Sorry, but I wouldn't like to lose the ability to build fully custom solutions. I don't want to rely on defaults. One person's sensible default is another's ins

by harel 9y ago

Sorry, but I wouldn't like to lose the ability to build fully custom solutions. I don't want to rely on defaults. One person's sensible default is another's insane one. JavaScript is what it is today because it serves a purpose and frankly, I think it does it well enough for now. And without CSS we'll end up with Beige boxed web, all looking the same, behaving the same, and stuck in someone's idea of a sensible default.

ashark 9y ago
> And without CSS we'll end up with Beige boxed web, all looking the same, behaving the same, and stuck in someone's idea of a sensible default. That'd be amazing. I wouldn't have to manually kill awful anti-user elements on half the pages I visit, learn how some special snowflake interface works yet again, and so on. I'd know exactly when server communication was going to happen. I could set custom user styles to whatever I like, or, probably, select from the most popular user-submitted ones on some settings screen. Write applications if you want that stuff. It's not like the current Web would go away, if you wanted to write exceptionally bad applications in e.g. Electron or write "web apps". I'd just like a program I can open to browse a document-centric web that I know won't spy on me, or use stupid amounts of resources to show me some text while hijacking scrolling, or show me popup ads, or auto-play video, make me adjust zoom levels per-page for the best reading experience, or any of that stuff that makes the Web worse and that we cannot get rid of without ditching (or crippling) Javascript and CSS. An enormous percentage of the Web would be vastly better under such a system, and most of the rest would be better as a real, native application.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- harel 9y ago
  Isn't it simpler to enforce-by-convention good ethical practices when developing web apps and sites? The slowness is many times not caused by the site but by the underlying extras underneath - useless and badly done ad tracking, overdose of adverts, video ads, sound - those can go. Good design however, sells. People who'd prefer beigebox internet are a minority. If they weren't the net would be different.
gaius 9y ago
without CSS we'll end up with Beige boxed web, all looking the same, behaving the same Designers generally vastly overestimate how much users actually want "design".
- barsonme 9y ago
  And developers vastly overestimate how much users really want bland websites like we had 10+ years ago. Sure, _we_ like it because it can be great for "power users" like _us_, but 99% of the population aren't power users. It reminds me of devs wondering why many people prefer bloated, slow GUIs to CLIs.
  - jodrellblank 9y ago
    What are you saying? That non-power-users like and are good at deciphering different designs and interaction models and layouts for every site, but they can't deal with regular, plain, bland sites because those are scary and confusing? If anything, shouldn't that be the other way around? Power users wanting javascript experiments, and non-power-users wanting "if it ain't broke, stop messing around with it"?
    - barsonme 9y ago
      No, not scary and confusing. Users (meaning non-power-users, generally) aren't always stupid. (In fact, given how well they can break our stuff, I'd say they're often smarter. But I digress...) What I'm saying is while we might be comfortable looking at plain HTML with #000 text on a #FFF background, a user isn't going to enjoy it very much. While we might use ctrl+f to hop around a page, a user will probably prefer a search bar with instant results that doesn't cause them to lose their place on the page. Consider: my mother (not picking on her!) definitely notices when websites run slowly. She hates it. (I got my lack of patience from her :-) However, I'm confident she would trade "slightly slow" Facebook for "have to refresh the page after each action" Facebook.
- mastax 9y ago
  Engineers generally vastly underestimate how much "design" affects purchasing decisions.
wott 9y ago
The client would be the one customizing the appearance. You pick the client you like, or pick one which is themable as you wish. You know, like for e-mail, or newsgroups, and so on.
snaky 9y ago
> all looking the same, behaving the same Yes, please!
anigbrowl 9y ago
Of course not, but if you want to be an app, be an app. There's huge value for consumers in standardization, that was something people liked about paper encyclopaedias back in the day: a huge amount of information presented in a consistent format that's easy to navigate. By comparison, the web is a drugstore magazine rack with minimal functionality wrapped up in eye candy. Way back in the early days of the web (said the old man) you also had control over how stuff presented int eh browser, you could customize fonts etc. to read stuff in a way that was comfortable for YOU. I absolutely hate everything being defined at the server end; large parts of the Settings page in my browser don't actually mean anything because nobody uses standardized html any more, and so client-side user interface development has stalled badly. I swear desktop Linux looked better 15 years ago than it does now because people took theming more seriously.

by harel 9y ago

ashark 9y ago

> And without CSS we'll end up with Beige boxed web, all looking the same, behaving the same, and stuck in someone's idea of a sensible default. That'd be amazing. I wouldn't have to manually kill awful anti-user elements on half the pages I visit, learn how some special snowflake interface works yet again, and so on. I'd know exactly when server communication was going to happen. I could set custom user styles to whatever I like, or, probably, select from the most popular user-submitted ones on some settings screen. Write applications if you want that stuff. It's not like the current Web would go away, if you wanted to write exceptionally bad applications in e.g. Electron or write "web apps". I'd just like a program I can open to browse a document-centric web that I know won't spy on me, or use stupid amounts of resources to show me some text while hijacking scrolling, or show me popup ads, or auto-play video, make me adjust zoom levels per-page for the best reading experience, or any of that stuff that makes the Web worse and that we cannot get rid of without ditching (or crippling) Javascript and CSS. An enormous percentage of the Web would be vastly better under such a system, and most of the rest would be better as a real, native application.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
harel 9y ago
Isn't it simpler to enforce-by-convention good ethical practices when developing web apps and sites? The slowness is many times not caused by the site but by the underlying extras underneath - useless and badly done ad tracking, overdose of adverts, video ads, sound - those can go. Good design however, sells. People who'd prefer beigebox internet are a minority. If they weren't the net would be different.

gaius 9y ago

without CSS we'll end up with Beige boxed web, all looking the same, behaving the same Designers generally vastly overestimate how much users actually want "design".

barsonme 9y ago
And developers vastly overestimate how much users really want bland websites like we had 10+ years ago. Sure, _we_ like it because it can be great for "power users" like _us_, but 99% of the population aren't power users. It reminds me of devs wondering why many people prefer bloated, slow GUIs to CLIs.
- jodrellblank 9y ago
  What are you saying? That non-power-users like and are good at deciphering different designs and interaction models and layouts for every site, but they can't deal with regular, plain, bland sites because those are scary and confusing? If anything, shouldn't that be the other way around? Power users wanting javascript experiments, and non-power-users wanting "if it ain't broke, stop messing around with it"?
  - barsonme 9y ago
    No, not scary and confusing. Users (meaning non-power-users, generally) aren't always stupid. (In fact, given how well they can break our stuff, I'd say they're often smarter. But I digress...) What I'm saying is while we might be comfortable looking at plain HTML with #000 text on a #FFF background, a user isn't going to enjoy it very much. While we might use ctrl+f to hop around a page, a user will probably prefer a search bar with instant results that doesn't cause them to lose their place on the page. Consider: my mother (not picking on her!) definitely notices when websites run slowly. She hates it. (I got my lack of patience from her :-) However, I'm confident she would trade "slightly slow" Facebook for "have to refresh the page after each action" Facebook.
mastax 9y ago
Engineers generally vastly underestimate how much "design" affects purchasing decisions.

wott 9y ago

The client would be the one customizing the appearance. You pick the client you like, or pick one which is themable as you wish. You know, like for e-mail, or newsgroups, and so on.

snaky 9y ago

> all looking the same, behaving the same Yes, please!

anigbrowl 9y ago

Of course not, but if you want to be an app, be an app. There's huge value for consumers in standardization, that was something people liked about paper encyclopaedias back in the day: a huge amount of information presented in a consistent format that's easy to navigate. By comparison, the web is a drugstore magazine rack with minimal functionality wrapped up in eye candy. Way back in the early days of the web (said the old man) you also had control over how stuff presented int eh browser, you could customize fonts etc. to read stuff in a way that was comfortable for YOU. I absolutely hate everything being defined at the server end; large parts of the Settings page in my browser don't actually mean anything because nobody uses standardized html any more, and so client-side user interface development has stalled badly. I swear desktop Linux looked better 15 years ago than it does now because people took theming more seriously.