3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI'd probably put the comments and submission form in an iframe; possibly from a third-party.
- savolai 7y agoAn 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. :)