4 ms·

I've tried Gatsby on a couple of occasions due to the page load speed promise. With netlify it seemed like using it almost made sense. I do see the compromises

I've tried Gatsby on a couple of occasions due to the page load speed promise. With netlify it seemed like using it almost made sense. I do see the compromises wp puts us into but for me, the benefits of static seem awfully abstract at the end of the day. If you want me to buy it, please show me an authoring experience I actually want to live in. I haven't seen one yet. It's not about over- our underestimating people. It's about whether the technocentricity you are selling is worth it. For some of us, it is, sure. For one, I just hate writing with markdown. Compared to WYSIWYG (i.e. just writing), markdown's syntax is a distraction. Writing is both visual and storytelling to me, why should I exclude the visual to a separate stage of the process? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Beldin 7y ago
the benefits of static seem awfully abstract at the end of the day. If you want me to buy it, please show me an authoring experience I actually want to live in. Authoring is about input to the system, static is about how the contents is given to the visitor. There is no technical reason a rich author experience cannot be coupled with a static approach to content delivery. In fact, the article focuses mostly on page bloat, not so much server-side processing. The amount of bytes a Web page weighs in at should mostly depends on its contents, not on the author tools used to create its content.
- savolai 7y ago
  If these are separate to you: How would you allow a user, while creating a blog post, to add commenting to the post in a way that enables progressive enhancement i.e. doesn't require javascript, with static site generators? If you can't, what is your justification for the sacrifice in accessibility? If you can fulfill this basic requirement, please show me the experience of using the system and show me how it is better than wp as a whole.
  - chriswarbo 7y ago
    I'd probably put the comments and submission form in an iframe; possibly from a third-party.
    - savolai 7y ago
      An iframe is a possibility; the fixed box size is an user experience tradeoff. I really believe in the vision of a read-write web, i.e. for me the default should be all involved parties being able to comment on any given content. Of course this should be possible to turn off for certain content and moderated, but it still seems artificial to not have the discussion on the same page, compared to the original post. HN is beautiful, for instance. :)
eitland 7y ago
> It's not about over- our underestimating people. It's about whether the technocentricity you are selling is worth it. For some of us, it is, sure. Have my upvote. You can pay a teenager to set up WP or netlify or more. What people pay me and possibly most HNers for is knowing what and when etc. In a small team or just for an individual this might boil all the way down to personal preference.
- savolai 7y ago
  Please elaborate? Not sure what you're referring to. In any of your paragraphs, in fact. Isn't the ascetic authoring experience provided my markdown just as much a result of deciding on which set of personal values are and are not important for your users?

Beldin 7y ago

the benefits of static seem awfully abstract at the end of the day. If you want me to buy it, please show me an authoring experience I actually want to live in. Authoring is about input to the system, static is about how the contents is given to the visitor. There is no technical reason a rich author experience cannot be coupled with a static approach to content delivery. In fact, the article focuses mostly on page bloat, not so much server-side processing. The amount of bytes a Web page weighs in at should mostly depends on its contents, not on the author tools used to create its content.

savolai 7y ago
If these are separate to you: How would you allow a user, while creating a blog post, to add commenting to the post in a way that enables progressive enhancement i.e. doesn't require javascript, with static site generators? If you can't, what is your justification for the sacrifice in accessibility? If you can fulfill this basic requirement, please show me the experience of using the system and show me how it is better than wp as a whole.
- chriswarbo 7y ago
  I'd probably put the comments and submission form in an iframe; possibly from a third-party.
  - savolai 7y ago
    An iframe is a possibility; the fixed box size is an user experience tradeoff. I really believe in the vision of a read-write web, i.e. for me the default should be all involved parties being able to comment on any given content. Of course this should be possible to turn off for certain content and moderated, but it still seems artificial to not have the discussion on the same page, compared to the original post. HN is beautiful, for instance. :)

eitland 7y ago

> It's not about over- our underestimating people. It's about whether the technocentricity you are selling is worth it. For some of us, it is, sure. Have my upvote. You can pay a teenager to set up WP or netlify or more. What people pay me and possibly most HNers for is knowing what and when etc. In a small team or just for an individual this might boil all the way down to personal preference.

savolai 7y ago
Please elaborate? Not sure what you're referring to. In any of your paragraphs, in fact. Isn't the ascetic authoring experience provided my markdown just as much a result of deciding on which set of personal values are and are not important for your users?