3 ms·

Or maybe, and this might sound crazy, just don't have giant piles of javascript. Or require javascript for viewing content at all. In the 90's, we had links fo

Or maybe, and this might sound crazy, just don't have giant piles of javascript. Or require javascript for viewing content at all. In the 90's, we had links for images where you'd have a thumbnail, and then links like [small][large][original], or similar. This still works perfectly today, and frankly makes for a better user experience. ------ Frankly, if your website has a "lightweight" version, I want that version even on my giant high-powered desktop. 90% of the places people use JS are pointless or silly anyways.

tyingq 7y ago
The current ecosystem seems to encourage it. I had little experience with the "post jQuery" world until recently. Little things, like, for example, webpack. It doesn't show you what all it's packaging by default. So as a developer, you might not see a bunch of node dependencies flowing down into the browser. And node's notion of separate dev and prod dependencies is only meaningful server side. You have to use some other mechanism to separate on the browser side.
Dunedan 7y ago
> In the 90's, we had links for images where you'd have a thumbnail, and then links like [small][large][original], or similar. This still works perfectly today, and frankly makes for a better user experience. Nowadays you can get an even better experience completely without JavaScript by using srcsets for images [1] to show images sized appropriate for the displaying device. [1]: https://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/att_source_srcset.asp https://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/att_source_srcset.asp
overcast 7y ago
I've been discussing this a lot recently, and I think this is going to be the trend going forward in the 2020's. Developers are going to embrace lightweight, server side pages again. The holdouts will be the corps still dumping trackers on us.

3 ms·

Or maybe, and this might sound crazy, just don't have giant piles of javascript. Or require javascript for viewing content at all. In the 90's, we had links fo

by fake-name 7y ago

tyingq 7y ago
The current ecosystem seems to encourage it. I had little experience with the "post jQuery" world until recently. Little things, like, for example, webpack. It doesn't show you what all it's packaging by default. So as a developer, you might not see a bunch of node dependencies flowing down into the browser. And node's notion of separate dev and prod dependencies is only meaningful server side. You have to use some other mechanism to separate on the browser side.
Dunedan 7y ago
> In the 90's, we had links for images where you'd have a thumbnail, and then links like [small][large][original], or similar. This still works perfectly today, and frankly makes for a better user experience. Nowadays you can get an even better experience completely without JavaScript by using srcsets for images [1] to show images sized appropriate for the displaying device. [1]: https://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/att_source_srcset.asp https://www.w3schools.com/TAgs/att_source_srcset.asp
overcast 7y ago
I've been discussing this a lot recently, and I think this is going to be the trend going forward in the 2020's. Developers are going to embrace lightweight, server side pages again. The holdouts will be the corps still dumping trackers on us.