3 ms·

> people don’t want to send web bundles to each other. They want to share a link. They don’t want alternate transports in general, really, or the complexities t

by untog 6y ago

> people don’t want to send web bundles to each other. They want to share a link. They don’t want alternate transports in general, really, or the complexities that come with that. Arguably "people" don't even want HTTP, either. They don't want any technical feature, they want the things they can do with that technical feature. You're right that they want simplicity, but Web Bundles done right should be very simple to the end user. Just a random example that comes to mind: I want to share a number of photos with someone. A web bundle could very easily group those photos together along with a quick webpage showing thumbnails, selection etc. without ever having to involve uploading photos to a remote server. That seems like a really interesting possibility to me.

jmull 6y ago
I should be clear, that's a reaction to pages like this one: https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/ There are similar ones. These are suggesting people want to share or access web sites in some other way than links. I don't think that's true in any significant way. > ...they want the things they can do with that technical feature... I agree. But the problem with all of the alternative transport scenarios is they have the user managing transport through some additional actions on their part. People couldn't care less about HTTP. What they like about it is they click/tap or copy/paste a link and that's it. Additional steps, like going through a specialized UI to share files via bluetooth is not going to interest very many people. That web site actually suggests people may want to share/access their website through the sneaker-net. That's just not a very important scenario. To take your photo sharing example. That could be done using a web bundle. But it could be done in a variety of ways that would look the same from a user perspective. Keep in mind a network (with servers) is needed to share the data, whether there's a web bundle or not. So the remote servers are there, regardless.

by untog 6y ago

jmull 6y ago

I should be clear, that's a reaction to pages like this one: https://web.dev/web-bundles/ https://web.dev/web-bundles/ There are similar ones. These are suggesting people want to share or access web sites in some other way than links. I don't think that's true in any significant way. > ...they want the things they can do with that technical feature... I agree. But the problem with all of the alternative transport scenarios is they have the user managing transport through some additional actions on their part. People couldn't care less about HTTP. What they like about it is they click/tap or copy/paste a link and that's it. Additional steps, like going through a specialized UI to share files via bluetooth is not going to interest very many people. That web site actually suggests people may want to share/access their website through the sneaker-net. That's just not a very important scenario. To take your photo sharing example. That could be done using a web bundle. But it could be done in a variety of ways that would look the same from a user perspective. Keep in mind a network (with servers) is needed to share the data, whether there's a web bundle or not. So the remote servers are there, regardless.