4 ms·

The web is evolving to provide media experiences that are lower latency and much more exploration oriented. No page reloads and greater interactivity are the fi

by garry 16y ago

The web is evolving to provide media experiences that are lower latency and much more exploration oriented. No page reloads and greater interactivity are the first step.

burgerbrain 16y ago
All of that adds exactly zero to the actual content of the blog. You know, 'content', the stuff I actually visit blogs for. Furthermore, I've never been annoyed at page reloads while reading a blog. Now their shitty transition crap?... There is nothing "lower latency" here.
- silversmith 16y ago
  Sending a e-mail does not add any real 'content' over telegraphing the same message. It's just a change of presentation layer. I still would rather send e-mails. And the same way I would rather create JS-driven sites. It allows me to be more creative with the presentation, while staying in the comfort zone of HTML/CSS/JS. Offloading work from my servers to the computers (that, based on my experience, are near-idle while browsing) of end users is a nice benefit. Oh, and I would disagree about the 'There is nothing "lower latency" here' statement. I visited lifehacker.com out of curiosity, and noticed something: with JS navigation, I could scan headlines in the sidebar while the article was loading, something I would not be able to do while a 'traditional' page was rendering. Of course, it's not a general rule. There are projects where you support IE6/7, and then there are projects where you don't give a damn whether it works for anything but edge versions. Same with using JS as presentation layer.
  - cousin_it 16y ago
    > with JS navigation, I could scan headlines in the sidebar while the article was loading, something I would not be able to do while a 'traditional' page was rendering. ...Wha? You can make traditional pages that display progressively just fine. In fact that's the default mode of operation for HTML and was supported as far back as Netscape 1.0. What's it with people, why do they keep forgetting about sensible architectural decisions just because they were made long ago? Or am I just getting old?
    - jarek 16y ago
      Most web programmers have always had the attention span of a goldf-- ooh shiny thing!
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    Bullshit. The fundamental difference between email and telegraphs are that you don't have to "go down to the email office" (and furthermore, is more decentralized). You know what is otherwise nearly perfectly analogous to telegraphs? Texting. That stuff is popular as fuck.
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  >All of that adds exactly zero to the actual content of the blog. You know, 'content', the stuff I actually visit blogs for. Who cares? Only you. Gawker cares about lower latency = more pageviews per visit = more $$$ from ads.
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    It's not lower latency, it's hidden latency. If you are one to be randomly amused and distracted by shiny things, perhaps you'd like it more.
- kls 16y ago
  Most cost analysis show client based UI as a simpler and more cost effective development model. Developers have more control over the UI and do not have to go through as much routing to accomplish a user action, this directly effects time to market as well as ongoing development and maintenance costs. Many organizations are switching for development and time to market costs alone, not just because it is cool, as the original author put it.
hollerith 16y ago
Well, I wish these ambitions that people have for the web -- like providing entrepreneurs and engineers a way to deliver apps without relying on Microsoft or another platform owner and like providing designers and artists a medium for artistic expression -- did not make writing and reading simple text documents a confusing experience that can go wrong in dozens of ways. And does anyone besides me find it ironic that the term 'thin client' is sometimes applied to this hairball over ever-increasing complexity we call the web browser?
- kls 16y ago
  You are right, the web is diverging into pages and applications, unfortunately some are using applications technology to deliver pages. Yet others keep trying to force page development patterns and practices on applications. The progressive enhancements one is the worst of all the sins of page developers writing apps. It kills the model and spikes the complexity. over ever-increasing complexity we call the web browser? Much of the complexity at least from a development standpoint is when people try to sprinkle in Ajax. They are two very distinct development patterns and mixing them creates a maintenance monster. If one is providing pages they are better off, grabbing a CMS and delivering pages, if one is building an app then one is better off throwing away JSP, ASP or PHP and writing all of the UI logic in client side JS that communicates to the server via REST and gets data that the UI is then responsible for displaying. Anything in between those two becomes a maintenance monster.

by garry 16y ago

The web is evolving to provide media experiences that are lower latency and much more exploration oriented. No page reloads and greater interactivity are the first step.

burgerbrain 16y ago

All of that adds exactly zero to the actual content of the blog. You know, 'content', the stuff I actually visit blogs for. Furthermore, I've never been annoyed at page reloads while reading a blog. Now their shitty transition crap?... There is nothing "lower latency" here.

silversmith 16y ago
Sending a e-mail does not add any real 'content' over telegraphing the same message. It's just a change of presentation layer. I still would rather send e-mails. And the same way I would rather create JS-driven sites. It allows me to be more creative with the presentation, while staying in the comfort zone of HTML/CSS/JS. Offloading work from my servers to the computers (that, based on my experience, are near-idle while browsing) of end users is a nice benefit. Oh, and I would disagree about the 'There is nothing "lower latency" here' statement. I visited lifehacker.com out of curiosity, and noticed something: with JS navigation, I could scan headlines in the sidebar while the article was loading, something I would not be able to do while a 'traditional' page was rendering. Of course, it's not a general rule. There are projects where you support IE6/7, and then there are projects where you don't give a damn whether it works for anything but edge versions. Same with using JS as presentation layer.
- cousin_it 16y ago
  > with JS navigation, I could scan headlines in the sidebar while the article was loading, something I would not be able to do while a 'traditional' page was rendering. ...Wha? You can make traditional pages that display progressively just fine. In fact that's the default mode of operation for HTML and was supported as far back as Netscape 1.0. What's it with people, why do they keep forgetting about sensible architectural decisions just because they were made long ago? Or am I just getting old?
  - jarek 16y ago
    Most web programmers have always had the attention span of a goldf-- ooh shiny thing!
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Bullshit. The fundamental difference between email and telegraphs are that you don't have to "go down to the email office" (and furthermore, is more decentralized). You know what is otherwise nearly perfectly analogous to telegraphs? Texting. That stuff is popular as fuck.
JonnieCache 16y ago
>All of that adds exactly zero to the actual content of the blog. You know, 'content', the stuff I actually visit blogs for. Who cares? Only you. Gawker cares about lower latency = more pageviews per visit = more $$$ from ads.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  It's not lower latency, it's hidden latency. If you are one to be randomly amused and distracted by shiny things, perhaps you'd like it more.
kls 16y ago
Most cost analysis show client based UI as a simpler and more cost effective development model. Developers have more control over the UI and do not have to go through as much routing to accomplish a user action, this directly effects time to market as well as ongoing development and maintenance costs. Many organizations are switching for development and time to market costs alone, not just because it is cool, as the original author put it.

hollerith 16y ago

Well, I wish these ambitions that people have for the web -- like providing entrepreneurs and engineers a way to deliver apps without relying on Microsoft or another platform owner and like providing designers and artists a medium for artistic expression -- did not make writing and reading simple text documents a confusing experience that can go wrong in dozens of ways. And does anyone besides me find it ironic that the term 'thin client' is sometimes applied to this hairball over ever-increasing complexity we call the web browser?

kls 16y ago
You are right, the web is diverging into pages and applications, unfortunately some are using applications technology to deliver pages. Yet others keep trying to force page development patterns and practices on applications. The progressive enhancements one is the worst of all the sins of page developers writing apps. It kills the model and spikes the complexity. over ever-increasing complexity we call the web browser? Much of the complexity at least from a development standpoint is when people try to sprinkle in Ajax. They are two very distinct development patterns and mixing them creates a maintenance monster. If one is providing pages they are better off, grabbing a CMS and delivering pages, if one is building an app then one is better off throwing away JSP, ASP or PHP and writing all of the UI logic in client side JS that communicates to the server via REST and gets data that the UI is then responsible for displaying. Anything in between those two becomes a maintenance monster.