3 ms·

>An MPA renders a 500 page upon error and that's it. However, an SPA needs to detect errors in the client code and then update the user interface accordingly. A

>An MPA renders a 500 page upon error and that's it. However, an SPA needs to detect errors in the client code and then update the user interface accordingly. Again, busywork required to regain what MPAs offer out of the box. Is that supposed to be a downside? Just showing a 500 page isn't really a great UX, the SPA experience is probably a lot better (think preserving of unsaved data for example).

Technetium_Hat 8y ago
I am not arguing against SPAs, but to prevent redownloading common page elements (menu bars, footers) you can use web components. I recently built a website using web components for this purpose (official implementation of the university's official theme) and it was a good experience. Proper CDN caching means you only have to download them once.
dagss 8y ago
Then you go back to the point made in the beginning of the article: Is the better UX during 5xx worth the extra investment? Does it directly drive more revenue than what it costs in developer time? I would argue that in most situations the business is better off using 10 hours of engineer time working on some source of 5xx, than 10 hours making sure the error has good UX. Problem with SPA made here is simply that there isn't an easy "good enough" solution like you have for MPA, it is either good ux or nothing. (I don't know if that is true or if it is just that SPA devs will always insist in good ux even if it doesn't improve company's bottom line)
- jhall1468 8y ago
  User Experience is not just about bottom line, and approaching it from that position is just terrible. People that have to interact with terrible UX don't like those interactions. A 500 error with a bolded text saying "an error occurred" is going to make me never return to your site, because a reasonable user experience for that page doesn't require 10 hours of work.
  - dagss 8y ago
    Users never returning has an effect on bottom line. So you can make the argument from that position. Whether users return, and how that hurts your business, depends very much on your site and your users. I will disagree about UX not being about bottom line though (in the usual context of a for-profit company of course). In a common setting, whoever pays developers and designers are doing so as an investment that they think will be profitable. If you can cut costs without hurting (long term) revenue by cheaping out on UX then of course you should (!). But often the idea is good UX will drive revenue...

Technetium_Hat 8y ago

I am not arguing against SPAs, but to prevent redownloading common page elements (menu bars, footers) you can use web components. I recently built a website using web components for this purpose (official implementation of the university's official theme) and it was a good experience. Proper CDN caching means you only have to download them once.

dagss 8y ago

Then you go back to the point made in the beginning of the article: Is the better UX during 5xx worth the extra investment? Does it directly drive more revenue than what it costs in developer time? I would argue that in most situations the business is better off using 10 hours of engineer time working on some source of 5xx, than 10 hours making sure the error has good UX. Problem with SPA made here is simply that there isn't an easy "good enough" solution like you have for MPA, it is either good ux or nothing. (I don't know if that is true or if it is just that SPA devs will always insist in good ux even if it doesn't improve company's bottom line)

jhall1468 8y ago
User Experience is not just about bottom line, and approaching it from that position is just terrible. People that have to interact with terrible UX don't like those interactions. A 500 error with a bolded text saying "an error occurred" is going to make me never return to your site, because a reasonable user experience for that page doesn't require 10 hours of work.
- dagss 8y ago
  Users never returning has an effect on bottom line. So you can make the argument from that position. Whether users return, and how that hurts your business, depends very much on your site and your users. I will disagree about UX not being about bottom line though (in the usual context of a for-profit company of course). In a common setting, whoever pays developers and designers are doing so as an investment that they think will be profitable. If you can cut costs without hurting (long term) revenue by cheaping out on UX then of course you should (!). But often the idea is good UX will drive revenue...