4 ms·

If you are thinking of things as "pages", this is of course true. I think a good example of a site that makes good use of this sort of thing is Wikipedia (the

If you are thinking of things as "pages", this is of course true. I think a good example of a site that makes good use of this sort of thing is Wikipedia (the non-mobile version). I love that I can mouse over links and get more information on something, without having to click to its actual page. It pulls down only the information needed, and leaves everything else in place. This makes browsing far more efficient, at least for me. Even on a fast computer with a fast connection, going to a whole new page is jarring, comparatively. Obviously if you need more information than the summary provides, great, go to the new page. But if not, this works great. Maybe what Wikipedia does isn't what the article is complaining about. But at least I think the article should mention that "page" is not the only meaningful unit of information on the web, or at least it doesn't have to be.

snek 7y ago
I think you actually make the opposite point you're trying to make. Wikipedia doesn't use JS for navigation, just to provide those little popups. If you have no JS, the site works exactly the same.
ryanbrunner 7y ago
This feels more like the old "progressive enhancement" model than the full blown SPA style that's popular today. Most navigation on Wikipedia is plain old browsers loading HTML pages, but if you happen to support JavaScript, it's used to augment the page to make it a little easier to browse. (I don't actually know for sure whether Wikipedia pages are primarily server rendered, but what you describe is perfectly possible using progressive enhancement).
- progval 7y ago
  > I don't actually know for sure whether Wikipedia pages are primarily server rendered Yes, Wikipedia works perfectly fine without Javascript
zucker42 7y ago
Like other comments have noted, that's not what the article is complaining about. In the context of this article, Wikipedia's design is analogous to the existing MDN site. I think Wikipedia is a website other websites should seek to emulate, because it loads quickly on all devices and connections I've had. Instead many text based, informational sites are going shifting to SPAs or similar JS reliant architectures.

snek 7y ago

I think you actually make the opposite point you're trying to make. Wikipedia doesn't use JS for navigation, just to provide those little popups. If you have no JS, the site works exactly the same.

ryanbrunner 7y ago

This feels more like the old "progressive enhancement" model than the full blown SPA style that's popular today. Most navigation on Wikipedia is plain old browsers loading HTML pages, but if you happen to support JavaScript, it's used to augment the page to make it a little easier to browse. (I don't actually know for sure whether Wikipedia pages are primarily server rendered, but what you describe is perfectly possible using progressive enhancement).

progval 7y ago
> I don't actually know for sure whether Wikipedia pages are primarily server rendered Yes, Wikipedia works perfectly fine without Javascript

zucker42 7y ago

Like other comments have noted, that's not what the article is complaining about. In the context of this article, Wikipedia's design is analogous to the existing MDN site. I think Wikipedia is a website other websites should seek to emulate, because it loads quickly on all devices and connections I've had. Instead many text based, informational sites are going shifting to SPAs or similar JS reliant architectures.