4 ms·

Yes, it is true. The modern web really is becoming an unusable, user-hostile wasteland, and also is very slow, very complicated, very messy, etc. The web develo

Yes, it is true. The modern web really is becoming an unusable, user-hostile wasteland, and also is very slow, very complicated, very messy, etc. The web developer tools help a bit, at least, but not quite. But better configuration for web browser should also be better. (Of course, there are also some good web pages too, but they are making a lot of bad ones too.) But (as another comment says) documents should not be apps; they are should be separate. (Although there is the case where sometimes you want to embed apps in documents, such as to make an interactive demonstration of some algorithm, or to include inline currency conversion, to validate or autocalculate a form, or whatever. But the document needs to be readable even if the code doesn't run, and the code probably shouldn't run by default. Also, I think such embedded apps should perhaps be separate frames even if enabled, and do not need to do as much stuff as is now exposed to JavaScript interfaces.) The modern web is also overused. Often, there are better file formats (e.g. plain text), protocols (e.g. IRC, NNTP, Gopher), etc, that can do as well, or better. Or even existing features of HTML and so on, which you can use but they use worse ones instead.

joe_the_user 7y ago
I can at least understand Facebook (that I'm on), the NYTimes (that I'm not on), or the twenty other big sites being paywalls, even if I hate it. But random newspaper from random little place telling to subscribe to their meager content after three articles? What do they really think? I mean, even if I subscribed to my own local news paper in my own little burge, am I really going to be going to the trouble of logging on and so-forth? All the paywalls seem more like excuses publisher make for their failings than anything they could reasonably expect to make money from. It's a lot like scholarly sites charging $25/article. My guess 0% percent of visitor pay this. It's not a price people, it's a price to justify other bullshit.
- sailfast 7y ago
  The funny thing is that the local burgh paper needs that subscription or it will not be there in a couple of years. They need it a lot more than NYtimes, perhaps who has a bigger global base. My answer to this is yes, absolutely, I will log in and pay for good local news coverage, and I do every day. If you don’t live there but the story explodes for some reason, why not try to get some new subscribers? Asking for money is not a big deal in my opinion. Asking for it by compromising your UX or user privacy, however (“only paid subscribers can view in incognito”) is terrible.
  - ddxxdd 7y ago
    Why isn't there some sort of coalition between local news sites that allows e.g. a paid subscription to oregonlive.com to allow you access to m[ichigan]live.com, nj.com, and other "local" news across the country? Sinclair Media already owns half the local news broadcasters around the country; why isn't such a setup already done?
    - bradleyankrom 7y ago
      Gannett has done that to an extent. You’ll see the same layout and styling across a lot of local sites as well as usatoday dot com.
- buboard 7y ago
  > What do they really think Small publishers don't really have the resources to think much about their monetization. Sad that there are not more companies working on monetization really, i was hoping browsers like firefox would step in to help.
danaris 7y ago
For better or worse, NNTP and Gopher are effectively dead in the mainstream—and probably outside of extremely narrow niches. Wanting people to use them more is going to be an exercise in frustration. IRC, of course, will never die.
B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
> The modern web really is becoming an unusable, user-hostile wasteland, and also is very slow, very complicated, very messy, etc. Well, that's success at emulating print, no? But at lower cost and vastly improved tracking. No more "don't know which 50% of ad-spend I'm wasting". Flawless victory.

joe_the_user 7y ago

I can at least understand Facebook (that I'm on), the NYTimes (that I'm not on), or the twenty other big sites being paywalls, even if I hate it. But random newspaper from random little place telling to subscribe to their meager content after three articles? What do they really think? I mean, even if I subscribed to my own local news paper in my own little burge, am I really going to be going to the trouble of logging on and so-forth? All the paywalls seem more like excuses publisher make for their failings than anything they could reasonably expect to make money from. It's a lot like scholarly sites charging $25/article. My guess 0% percent of visitor pay this. It's not a price people, it's a price to justify other bullshit.

sailfast 7y ago
The funny thing is that the local burgh paper needs that subscription or it will not be there in a couple of years. They need it a lot more than NYtimes, perhaps who has a bigger global base. My answer to this is yes, absolutely, I will log in and pay for good local news coverage, and I do every day. If you don’t live there but the story explodes for some reason, why not try to get some new subscribers? Asking for money is not a big deal in my opinion. Asking for it by compromising your UX or user privacy, however (“only paid subscribers can view in incognito”) is terrible.
- ddxxdd 7y ago
  Why isn't there some sort of coalition between local news sites that allows e.g. a paid subscription to oregonlive.com to allow you access to m[ichigan]live.com, nj.com, and other "local" news across the country? Sinclair Media already owns half the local news broadcasters around the country; why isn't such a setup already done?
  - bradleyankrom 7y ago
    Gannett has done that to an extent. You’ll see the same layout and styling across a lot of local sites as well as usatoday dot com.
buboard 7y ago
> What do they really think Small publishers don't really have the resources to think much about their monetization. Sad that there are not more companies working on monetization really, i was hoping browsers like firefox would step in to help.

danaris 7y ago

For better or worse, NNTP and Gopher are effectively dead in the mainstream—and probably outside of extremely narrow niches. Wanting people to use them more is going to be an exercise in frustration. IRC, of course, will never die.

B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago

> The modern web really is becoming an unusable, user-hostile wasteland, and also is very slow, very complicated, very messy, etc. Well, that's success at emulating print, no? But at lower cost and vastly improved tracking. No more "don't know which 50% of ad-spend I'm wasting". Flawless victory.