3 ms·
Not joking. It was a rhetorical question. What I mean: This is an example where a single-page approach is better. I agree that there are many single-page site
by 3dfan 8y ago
Not joking. It was a rhetorical question.
What I mean: This is an example where a single-page approach is better.
I agree that there are many single-page sites that would be better if they were multipage. But I'm not sure the "almost always" is justified.
The title of the article is even stronger "The Architecture No One Needs". But you and I clearly can bring up examples where it's an architecture that does make sense.
- cpeterso 8y agoWhy is this product chart SPA better than a simple MPA? The zoom animations do not add any value to the user experience. Also, with this SPA, you can't bookmark or a share a URL to a particular hardware search, so information and usability is lost. The URLs could be fixed, but the SPA has to explicitly manage the page history. An MFA gets that for free.
- systematical 8y agoAs a developer I appreciate it more, perhaps users might find it slicker. However, I go back to something another user posted "The vast majority of users don't even perceive things like page reloading, etc. Build something useful, whatever the means are." And that is the correct answer here. As the other poster stated, there are tons of applications that don't need to be an SPA. Think of damn near every admin section of a companies intranet or whatever. That thing just needs do the job, run fast enough, be easy to scale and develop on and hopefully not look like an eye sore.