5 ms·

> html, css, and jQuery work just about exactly the same as they did a decade ago, nothing stops you from using tools you already understand. A decade ago, the

> html, css, and jQuery work just about exactly the same as they did a decade ago, nothing stops you from using tools you already understand. A decade ago, the requirements for supporting all/most clients (devices) were radically different. Different requirements mean different solutions and perhaps new tools must be used.

striking 9y ago
This isn't really true. jQuery's compatibility can stretch all the way back to IE8, up to the newest devices. If you require the web to be more than a document viewer, then you might in fact need some different tools; but HTML/CSS/jQuery didn't solve those if you're going back that far, Flash did. But HTML/CSS/jQuery still work to solve the problems they always did. And they're still used in production today. According to W3Techs, jQuery is still present in 96.2% of the sites they could determine a JavaScript framework for in the Alexa top 10M.[1] And the very popular CSS framework Bootstrap still has it as one of its dependencies.[2] "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 1: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery/all/all 2: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/getting-started/introduction/#js https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/getting-started/introducti...
- lazyjones 9y ago
  > According to W3Techs, jQuery is still present in 96.2% of the sites they could determine a JavaScript framework for But that doesn't mean jquery was used exclusively on these sites. Look at any major website, in addition to some modern framework, they will often include jquery for just a few old hacks (I've seen popular sites include 3-5 different jquery versions on the same page).
  - marpstar 9y ago
    Also, WordPress includes it by default, but rarely are the site admins actually doing anything with jQuery.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Many sites hang onto jQuery solely for the Ajax abstraction that allows older versions of IE to function.
jccooper 9y ago
You have to do responsive design, and yes, that's a big change (and a big PITA) but that doesn't require flex or grid or React or whatever. You can't go all the way back to tables, but good ol' div-based design with appropriate CSS works just fine. The new stuff may make some things easier (or not), but if you don't feel like shifting paradigms, you certainly don't have to.
- graycat 9y ago
  My Web pages are based on tables and have not even one DIV element! Why do I have to use DIV? Actually, I never saw any good explanation on what DIV did. What the heck is DIV good for? Why use DIV? Why can't I use tables?
  - collinmanderson 9y ago
    > Why can't I use tables? I think it's harder to make design changes to the page. You also end up doing crazy rowspan and colspan things. You end up with more html tags (though probably less css). It's probably fine. Though it's probably hard to make mobile-friendly. A lot of html emails use tables for layout because they can't trust the layout will work with divs+css.
    - graycat 9y ago
      Okay. So far I haven't had to use the span thingys. For mobile, I'm just assuming that the users smartphone has a Web browser. For fitting on the smartphone screen, each page is just 800 pixels wide, and smartphone screens are that wide? But even if not, my pages are still usable with only 300 pixels wide. My most complicated page sends for just 400,000 bits which seems small enough. There are just two files, HTML and JavaScript (JS). The JS file is written by ASP.NET and is small and optional -- so I'm expecting fast page loading. I didn't see any good reasons to do anything special or different for mobile. What am I missing?
      - lozenge 9y ago
        The same font size on an 800 pixel wide smartphone as on an 800 pixel wide desktop screen will not be readable at all. Go watch the original iPhone unveiling - https://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/09/09/genius-annotated-with-genius/ https://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/09/09/genius-annotated-wit... - at 01:00:00 or so he shows the New York Times website front page. It's in three columns, like on desktop, meaning you can read nothing until double-tapping to zoom in. 10 years ago, because nobody owned a mobile, this was considered acceptable UX. Now visit it today - https://mobile.nytimes.com https://mobile.nytimes.com - with a narrow window. The layout changes and the first headline is immediately visible. That can't be done in table layouts. If somebody visited a news website on a mobile today and saw a desktop-optimized layout, they would likely immediately leave.

striking 9y ago

This isn't really true. jQuery's compatibility can stretch all the way back to IE8, up to the newest devices. If you require the web to be more than a document viewer, then you might in fact need some different tools; but HTML/CSS/jQuery didn't solve those if you're going back that far, Flash did. But HTML/CSS/jQuery still work to solve the problems they always did. And they're still used in production today. According to W3Techs, jQuery is still present in 96.2% of the sites they could determine a JavaScript framework for in the Alexa top 10M.[1] And the very popular CSS framework Bootstrap still has it as one of its dependencies.[2] "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 1: https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery/all/all https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/js-jquery/all/all 2: https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/getting-started/introduction/#js https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/getting-started/introducti...

lazyjones 9y ago
> According to W3Techs, jQuery is still present in 96.2% of the sites they could determine a JavaScript framework for But that doesn't mean jquery was used exclusively on these sites. Look at any major website, in addition to some modern framework, they will often include jquery for just a few old hacks (I've seen popular sites include 3-5 different jquery versions on the same page).
- marpstar 9y ago
  Also, WordPress includes it by default, but rarely are the site admins actually doing anything with jQuery.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Many sites hang onto jQuery solely for the Ajax abstraction that allows older versions of IE to function.

jccooper 9y ago

You have to do responsive design, and yes, that's a big change (and a big PITA) but that doesn't require flex or grid or React or whatever. You can't go all the way back to tables, but good ol' div-based design with appropriate CSS works just fine. The new stuff may make some things easier (or not), but if you don't feel like shifting paradigms, you certainly don't have to.

graycat 9y ago
My Web pages are based on tables and have not even one DIV element! Why do I have to use DIV? Actually, I never saw any good explanation on what DIV did. What the heck is DIV good for? Why use DIV? Why can't I use tables?
- collinmanderson 9y ago
  > Why can't I use tables? I think it's harder to make design changes to the page. You also end up doing crazy rowspan and colspan things. You end up with more html tags (though probably less css). It's probably fine. Though it's probably hard to make mobile-friendly. A lot of html emails use tables for layout because they can't trust the layout will work with divs+css.
  - graycat 9y ago
    Okay. So far I haven't had to use the span thingys. For mobile, I'm just assuming that the users smartphone has a Web browser. For fitting on the smartphone screen, each page is just 800 pixels wide, and smartphone screens are that wide? But even if not, my pages are still usable with only 300 pixels wide. My most complicated page sends for just 400,000 bits which seems small enough. There are just two files, HTML and JavaScript (JS). The JS file is written by ASP.NET and is small and optional -- so I'm expecting fast page loading. I didn't see any good reasons to do anything special or different for mobile. What am I missing?
    - lozenge 9y ago
      The same font size on an 800 pixel wide smartphone as on an 800 pixel wide desktop screen will not be readable at all. Go watch the original iPhone unveiling - https://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/09/09/genius-annotated-with-genius/ https://thenextweb.com/apple/2015/09/09/genius-annotated-wit... - at 01:00:00 or so he shows the New York Times website front page. It's in three columns, like on desktop, meaning you can read nothing until double-tapping to zoom in. 10 years ago, because nobody owned a mobile, this was considered acceptable UX. Now visit it today - https://mobile.nytimes.com https://mobile.nytimes.com - with a narrow window. The layout changes and the first headline is immediately visible. That can't be done in table layouts. If somebody visited a news website on a mobile today and saw a desktop-optimized layout, they would likely immediately leave.