5 ms·

What's the difference between what's being described here and the web? (In particular, Electron-based local applications which of course have a cross-platform

What's the difference between what's being described here and the web? (In particular, Electron-based local applications which of course have a cross-platform web-based UI.) I'm not saying they aren't different, at the very least, Emacs prioritizes text, while the web prioritizes multimedia. But I'd love to hear other peoples takes on the differences.

narwally 6y ago
> What's the difference between what's being described here and the web? The web is generally terrible for accessibility. Since emacs has always prioritized maintaining compatibility between its graphical and text UIs, it words very well with screen readers and refreshable braille displays. It's also been designed from the beginning with keyboard navigation in mind.
slightwinder 6y ago
The Webstack is far more complex than anything emacs offers. Emacs has just a wall of text with some special markup, but there is not concept of layout for this text, and all navigation is usually separate from the wall of text, making accesability significant simpler to handle. In emacs there is a beginning and an end, and you just follow the flow. In webstack you have elements, which have a position and if you are lucky they are tagged with their purpose. If not, it's up to you to figure out whether this is for navigation or content or advertisement or some other navigation or comments, which is more another kind of navigation... Basically there is just no really realiable structure with the web. Sometimes there is something, sometimes not, sometimes it's this way, next week it can be that way... And even worse are dynamic site where parts of the site are loaded on demand. So you need a complex setup of tools to handle those content, instead of simple text-search and cursor-moving.
- shawnz 6y ago
  You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... it's just that Emacs is not as widely used as the Web and its users don't have such varying demands and use cases for it, so it's not as common for that to happen. The Web is also designed around a linear flow of text. The Web also provides opportunities to make navigation semantics clear. The Web also implicitly supports keyboard navigation everywhere. etc. Although many websites try to work around those principles, is that a problem with the web or just the websites people are using today?
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    > You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... If you do it on purpose, then maybe, but not to the degree of what webstack offers. People already have a hard time to handle org-mode-hierachies and folding... > The Web is also designed around a linear flow of text. No, that went out the door when CSS was added. Now it's designed around random positioning of little boxes. Some boxes contain linear text, some contain media, most contain even more little boxes. Emacs does not have those boxes in the first place. The only boxes it has are outside the document, avoiding this whole class of problems for accesability.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, thus letting you create whatever little boxes you want. Plus, it has support for images and even arbitrary GTK widgets in that buffer too. Remember before CSS, people just did the same thing anyway with tables. CSS only made easier what people were already doing. I am sure the same would happen to Emacs if it ever became a widely used piece of software.
      - slightwinder 6y ago
        > Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, Does the emacs-api directly support this or is it just some hacked up solution everyone must do on their own? Of course can you emulate boxes and any kind of layout-sytem, but whether it's a general supported solution or just some ugly hack that has no backing in the general culture of a software, makes a significant difference. It's the difference between 99% of all encountered content is problematic for accesability or just 1%.
- taeric 6y ago
  I think you have never looked at the customize screens. Not to mention that many of us have used emacs for email for ages. Which, lo and behold, is dynamic with parts loading before or after others. Even viewing images inline has been doable for a long time. Don't get me wrong. Emacs has stayed mostly text focused. Even mostly linear focused, I would agree. I view that as a plus, though. The modern web world? Not so much. And telling that most "resurgences" of popular sites and ideas are usually a return to a linear treatment of data. Often most of the extra crap around are flashy graphics or desperate attempts to get more interaction from users.
HelloNurse 6y ago
"Prioritizes"? It's a fundamental difference. If everything is text, text processing can process everything; if everything is a blob with a MIME type user experience is fragmented into whatever more or less integrated clients are able and willing to do with each incoming document (usually not much).

narwally 6y ago

> What's the difference between what's being described here and the web? The web is generally terrible for accessibility. Since emacs has always prioritized maintaining compatibility between its graphical and text UIs, it words very well with screen readers and refreshable braille displays. It's also been designed from the beginning with keyboard navigation in mind.

slightwinder 6y ago

The Webstack is far more complex than anything emacs offers. Emacs has just a wall of text with some special markup, but there is not concept of layout for this text, and all navigation is usually separate from the wall of text, making accesability significant simpler to handle. In emacs there is a beginning and an end, and you just follow the flow. In webstack you have elements, which have a position and if you are lucky they are tagged with their purpose. If not, it's up to you to figure out whether this is for navigation or content or advertisement or some other navigation or comments, which is more another kind of navigation... Basically there is just no really realiable structure with the web. Sometimes there is something, sometimes not, sometimes it's this way, next week it can be that way... And even worse are dynamic site where parts of the site are loaded on demand. So you need a complex setup of tools to handle those content, instead of simple text-search and cursor-moving.

shawnz 6y ago
You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... it's just that Emacs is not as widely used as the Web and its users don't have such varying demands and use cases for it, so it's not as common for that to happen. The Web is also designed around a linear flow of text. The Web also provides opportunities to make navigation semantics clear. The Web also implicitly supports keyboard navigation everywhere. etc. Although many websites try to work around those principles, is that a problem with the web or just the websites people are using today?
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > You could construct the same kinds of problematic UIs in Emacs too... If you do it on purpose, then maybe, but not to the degree of what webstack offers. People already have a hard time to handle org-mode-hierachies and folding... > The Web is also designed around a linear flow of text. No, that went out the door when CSS was added. Now it's designed around random positioning of little boxes. Some boxes contain linear text, some contain media, most contain even more little boxes. Emacs does not have those boxes in the first place. The only boxes it has are outside the document, avoiding this whole class of problems for accesability.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, thus letting you create whatever little boxes you want. Plus, it has support for images and even arbitrary GTK widgets in that buffer too. Remember before CSS, people just did the same thing anyway with tables. CSS only made easier what people were already doing. I am sure the same would happen to Emacs if it ever became a widely used piece of software.
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      > Sure it does. First of all, you can lay text anywhere you want in a buffer, Does the emacs-api directly support this or is it just some hacked up solution everyone must do on their own? Of course can you emulate boxes and any kind of layout-sytem, but whether it's a general supported solution or just some ugly hack that has no backing in the general culture of a software, makes a significant difference. It's the difference between 99% of all encountered content is problematic for accesability or just 1%.
taeric 6y ago
I think you have never looked at the customize screens. Not to mention that many of us have used emacs for email for ages. Which, lo and behold, is dynamic with parts loading before or after others. Even viewing images inline has been doable for a long time. Don't get me wrong. Emacs has stayed mostly text focused. Even mostly linear focused, I would agree. I view that as a plus, though. The modern web world? Not so much. And telling that most "resurgences" of popular sites and ideas are usually a return to a linear treatment of data. Often most of the extra crap around are flashy graphics or desperate attempts to get more interaction from users.

HelloNurse 6y ago

"Prioritizes"? It's a fundamental difference. If everything is text, text processing can process everything; if everything is a blob with a MIME type user experience is fragmented into whatever more or less integrated clients are able and willing to do with each incoming document (usually not much).