3 ms·

> We know that users presented with these kinds of dialogs don't read them. They just blindly click "OK" to get the dialog to go away. So now you're just annoyi

> We know that users presented with these kinds of dialogs don't read them. They just blindly click "OK" to get the dialog to go away. So now you're just annoying people to no good purpose. I would say you're annoying some people so others have the ability to make that choice, and the site developers will definitely see the friction of that dialog as something to be avoided. It incentivizes good behavior. > It's measuring the wrong thing. 1 kilobyte of badly written code can do as much or more harm to the user experience than 1 megabyte of well written code will. That depends entirely on your connection, keeping in mind your connection might be from your phone, when you have very poor reception. The fact that people are immediately assuming it only matters for execution time after loading illustrates part of the problem, which is that developers often forget about entire classes of access and thus don't consider the problems they create for them.

kodablah 8y ago
> I would say you're annoying some people so others have the ability to make that choice That is justification for opt-in instead of opt-out for this feature. But you lose that incentive you want. Want to make your users happy and have on-by-default protection to incentivize better resource management? Gotta get out of the users' way.
antris 8y ago
> That depends entirely on your connection, keeping in mind your connection might be from your phone, when you have very poor reception. Even large payloads on slow connections can be worked around if you know what you are doing. If your site is well engineered to progressively enhance without disruption, it does not matter if JavaScript is being loaded in the background.
- FridgeSeal 8y ago
  > If your site is well engineered to progressively enhance without disruption, it does not matter if JavaScript is being loaded in the background. Yes but how many places actually make this effort? Seems to me that most places are very content to make some monstrous multi-MB React/Angular/etc app, ship it and wash their hands. The number of websites that have actually gone to the effort of optimising their sites is extremely small, so I'm doubtful when someone says "oh but web apps can do this too, if you only just progressively load/build it properly/etc" because that implies effort that so far, seemingly no one has gone to the trouble of actually doing.
  - antris 8y ago
    It's not common enough, but I think the situation is getting a bit better. Node and React made it greatly easier to render your pages on the server side, and I've seen a lot more sites do it.
UncleMeat 8y ago
"Your connection is using RSA signatures instead of ECSDA. Do you want to continue?" "The bits for this website traveled through a router in Europe. Do you want to continue?" "This website uses some special behavior that isn't part of the w3c spec and works slightly differently in your browser than in other browsers. Do you want to continue?" "This website was developed by a company that offers its employees below market rate health insurance. Do you want to continue?" There exist people who'd like to know about each of these things. It would be insane to make them dialog boxes.

kodablah 8y ago

> I would say you're annoying some people so others have the ability to make that choice That is justification for opt-in instead of opt-out for this feature. But you lose that incentive you want. Want to make your users happy and have on-by-default protection to incentivize better resource management? Gotta get out of the users' way.

antris 8y ago

> That depends entirely on your connection, keeping in mind your connection might be from your phone, when you have very poor reception. Even large payloads on slow connections can be worked around if you know what you are doing. If your site is well engineered to progressively enhance without disruption, it does not matter if JavaScript is being loaded in the background.

FridgeSeal 8y ago
> If your site is well engineered to progressively enhance without disruption, it does not matter if JavaScript is being loaded in the background. Yes but how many places actually make this effort? Seems to me that most places are very content to make some monstrous multi-MB React/Angular/etc app, ship it and wash their hands. The number of websites that have actually gone to the effort of optimising their sites is extremely small, so I'm doubtful when someone says "oh but web apps can do this too, if you only just progressively load/build it properly/etc" because that implies effort that so far, seemingly no one has gone to the trouble of actually doing.
- antris 8y ago
  It's not common enough, but I think the situation is getting a bit better. Node and React made it greatly easier to render your pages on the server side, and I've seen a lot more sites do it.

UncleMeat 8y ago

"Your connection is using RSA signatures instead of ECSDA. Do you want to continue?" "The bits for this website traveled through a router in Europe. Do you want to continue?" "This website uses some special behavior that isn't part of the w3c spec and works slightly differently in your browser than in other browsers. Do you want to continue?" "This website was developed by a company that offers its employees below market rate health insurance. Do you want to continue?" There exist people who'd like to know about each of these things. It would be insane to make them dialog boxes.