5 ms·

"The community" has had such a hostility to a broadly-accepted user experience ever since there was a web to browse. (I used to be one of them, back when <cent

by Frondo 8y ago

"The community" has had such a hostility to a broadly-accepted user experience ever since there was a web to browse. (I used to be one of them, back when <center> was a netscape-only tag. Follow the standards! Write for content! People don't need that visual jazz!) There's still a non-negligible contingent on here that insists that the web should be browseable without javascript; that ship sailed well over a decade ago. The users decided, rich interfaces are the way to go. We did fail the world, and this is what we get.

pishpash 8y ago
The users decided on rich interfaces? Or the developers did?
- WWLink 8y ago
  I'm honestly not sure which. My favorite local fish place has a webpage with a "menu" link at the top that goes to .. a long scrolly list WITH PRICES. HOLY SHIT. Why can't more places be like that?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Your local place probably doesn't have enough competition yet to be forced to become customer-hostile. As for who decides, it's always the developers. Mainstream users have no context for tech, they accept what they're given, thinking this is how things are supposed to be.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      > doesn't have enough competition yet to be forced to become customer-hostile. This is an amazing statement of the post-consumerist economy. It sounds contradictory but it feels like it has to be true.
      - TeMPOraL 8y ago
        I guess it might sound contradictory if one assumes that more competition is always better for the consumer, without considering how competition works. What competitive pressure does is continuously minimize everyone's margins, forcing companies to figure out new strategies of making money in order to survive. Being the best vendor from customer's point of view is one approach, but not the only one - and not necessarily most efficient. Other effective approaches include: reducing quality, marketing, more marketing, dishonest marketing, dark UX patterns, planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, increasingly complicated business modes. Now the kicker is, once somebody uses one of those "dark" approaches to get ahead, everyone else is forced to follow suit or risk getting outcompeted.
- mLuby 8y ago
  The users did, proxied through PMs and designers. It's a classic arms race; can't be the worst looking site/app on the block.
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    PMs and designers are famously terrible proxies for actual users.
- tachyonbeam 8y ago
  I don't think the users decided on anything. Browsers are just prone to insane feature creep as a result of the game theory involved. If you are a browser vendor, you don't want your browser to not support a feature that other browsers don't. Otherwise, users go to a website, and it doesn't work properly on your browser, and they blame you. If this website is something important like a bank, a news website they like, anything popular that their friends use, they might well ditch your browser. As a result, to some extent, browsers have to support all the features that other browsers do. On top of this, browser vendors want to remain "innovative", show leadership, so they keep pushing for new features that other browsers don't have. I mean, imagine working on some browser team, having the opportunity to push your web project and having it become a standard web feature, your legacy would live on forever, the hubris of it is just irresistible. Fuck taking the time to properly design this API, think of possible use cases, and design something solid and extensible, let's push WebVirtualReality2000API out before other browsers do, otherwise they will push theirs first and start gaining traction! So, back to JavaScript. Brendan Eich worked at Netscape and implemented the original version of it in two weeks and it was rushed into production. People started to make use of it. Eventually other browsers had no choice but to support it, otherwise they were faced with lots of webpages that were broken without it, webpages that only work in Netscape. Microsoft definitely couldn't let that happen.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Eventually other browsers had no choice but to support it, otherwise they were faced with lots of webpages that were broken without it, webpages that only work in Netscape. Microsoft definitely couldn't let that happen. And then, some time later, when they had this one opportunity to rip JavaScript out and replace it with something better (and, once again, Scheme was a candidate), competition with Microsoft didn't let that happen.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      There was no such later opportunity.
- huragok 8y ago
  Developers didn't, Product Managers did.
NegativeLatency 8y ago
I’d love to see some new standards, something like an iframe you can control from the parent page with minimal js, decent date/time pickers built in, autocomplete, etc As it is people ask for this stuff and the only recourse is to bundle tons of js into your page.
bsder 8y ago
> There's still a non-negligible contingent on here that insists that the web should be browseable without javascript; that ship sailed well over a decade ago. The users decided, rich interfaces are the way to go. Users decided no such thing. Users spoke QUITE loudly that even 100ms of delay results in lost attention and sales. The FAANGs didn't give a shit--Javascript was a vector for advertising monetization. Anything which got in the way of their selling you advertising or selling your information got trampled mercilessly. No company cares about your user experience--delivering an ad takes priority.
adrianN 8y ago
I don't mind Javascript for rich interfaces. I do mind it if it's required to load a page that is just text and images.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
As others said, users didn't decide shit. There's no meaningful way for occasional user feedback to reach the webdev community at large, not in a way that outshouts the desire to abuse users with flashy UIs and hostile monetization schemes. And most users don't give useful feedback anyway, because regular people have no context around technology. No mental model to tell them "this website is shit because A, B, C". They can only accept what's served on the market, with all frustrations that come from it, as the way the world is supposed to look ("after all, so many smart people are working on this"). They can't even "vote with their wallet", as almost all websites are non-substitutable, if you account for vendor lock-in and geographical limitations.

by Frondo 8y ago

pishpash 8y ago

The users decided on rich interfaces? Or the developers did?

WWLink 8y ago
I'm honestly not sure which. My favorite local fish place has a webpage with a "menu" link at the top that goes to .. a long scrolly list WITH PRICES. HOLY SHIT. Why can't more places be like that?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Your local place probably doesn't have enough competition yet to be forced to become customer-hostile. As for who decides, it's always the developers. Mainstream users have no context for tech, they accept what they're given, thinking this is how things are supposed to be.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > doesn't have enough competition yet to be forced to become customer-hostile. This is an amazing statement of the post-consumerist economy. It sounds contradictory but it feels like it has to be true.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      I guess it might sound contradictory if one assumes that more competition is always better for the consumer, without considering how competition works. What competitive pressure does is continuously minimize everyone's margins, forcing companies to figure out new strategies of making money in order to survive. Being the best vendor from customer's point of view is one approach, but not the only one - and not necessarily most efficient. Other effective approaches include: reducing quality, marketing, more marketing, dishonest marketing, dark UX patterns, planned obsolescence, vendor lock-in, increasingly complicated business modes. Now the kicker is, once somebody uses one of those "dark" approaches to get ahead, everyone else is forced to follow suit or risk getting outcompeted.
mLuby 8y ago
The users did, proxied through PMs and designers. It's a classic arms race; can't be the worst looking site/app on the block.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  PMs and designers are famously terrible proxies for actual users.
tachyonbeam 8y ago
I don't think the users decided on anything. Browsers are just prone to insane feature creep as a result of the game theory involved. If you are a browser vendor, you don't want your browser to not support a feature that other browsers don't. Otherwise, users go to a website, and it doesn't work properly on your browser, and they blame you. If this website is something important like a bank, a news website they like, anything popular that their friends use, they might well ditch your browser. As a result, to some extent, browsers have to support all the features that other browsers do. On top of this, browser vendors want to remain "innovative", show leadership, so they keep pushing for new features that other browsers don't have. I mean, imagine working on some browser team, having the opportunity to push your web project and having it become a standard web feature, your legacy would live on forever, the hubris of it is just irresistible. Fuck taking the time to properly design this API, think of possible use cases, and design something solid and extensible, let's push WebVirtualReality2000API out before other browsers do, otherwise they will push theirs first and start gaining traction! So, back to JavaScript. Brendan Eich worked at Netscape and implemented the original version of it in two weeks and it was rushed into production. People started to make use of it. Eventually other browsers had no choice but to support it, otherwise they were faced with lots of webpages that were broken without it, webpages that only work in Netscape. Microsoft definitely couldn't let that happen.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Eventually other browsers had no choice but to support it, otherwise they were faced with lots of webpages that were broken without it, webpages that only work in Netscape. Microsoft definitely couldn't let that happen. And then, some time later, when they had this one opportunity to rip JavaScript out and replace it with something better (and, once again, Scheme was a candidate), competition with Microsoft didn't let that happen.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    There was no such later opportunity.
huragok 8y ago
Developers didn't, Product Managers did.

NegativeLatency 8y ago

I’d love to see some new standards, something like an iframe you can control from the parent page with minimal js, decent date/time pickers built in, autocomplete, etc As it is people ask for this stuff and the only recourse is to bundle tons of js into your page.

bsder 8y ago

> There's still a non-negligible contingent on here that insists that the web should be browseable without javascript; that ship sailed well over a decade ago. The users decided, rich interfaces are the way to go. Users decided no such thing. Users spoke QUITE loudly that even 100ms of delay results in lost attention and sales. The FAANGs didn't give a shit--Javascript was a vector for advertising monetization. Anything which got in the way of their selling you advertising or selling your information got trampled mercilessly. No company cares about your user experience--delivering an ad takes priority.

adrianN 8y ago

I don't mind Javascript for rich interfaces. I do mind it if it's required to load a page that is just text and images.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

As others said, users didn't decide shit. There's no meaningful way for occasional user feedback to reach the webdev community at large, not in a way that outshouts the desire to abuse users with flashy UIs and hostile monetization schemes. And most users don't give useful feedback anyway, because regular people have no context around technology. No mental model to tell them "this website is shit because A, B, C". They can only accept what's served on the market, with all frustrations that come from it, as the way the world is supposed to look ("after all, so many smart people are working on this"). They can't even "vote with their wallet", as almost all websites are non-substitutable, if you account for vendor lock-in and geographical limitations.