4 ms·

Clearly the (blindingly obvious) answer is that this industry is run by clowns. With the mere exception of some enlightened guys on HN. Incredible what high hor

by bauerd 6y ago

Clearly the (blindingly obvious) answer is that this industry is run by clowns. With the mere exception of some enlightened guys on HN. Incredible what high horse some people here ride on.

lmilcin 6y ago
Except it is not "run by". It is caused by collective stupidity inherent to any group of random people that causes collectively suboptimal choices to be optimal from the point of any single group member. With all the processing power and bandwidth I still feel the Web is much poorer than it was 20 years ago.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
krageon 6y ago
I do not think "the industry" is run by clowns. There is just a toxic subset of the community that writes a lot of bad software and refuses to accept that that could have been avoided by performing some actual study. That's not a high horse, it's just having an interest in what you do and doing the best that you possibly can.
- joshjdr 6y ago
  I might be in the minority here, but I appreciate your toning down the hostility of this discussion. I believe if per the article, "the entire network already consumes 10% of global electricity production, with data traffic doubling roughly every two years" the article/share seems like a valid question/concern for the community. Do designers contribute to the problem? Surely yes. Should "all designers should learn to code"? I don't think so. Besides seeming impractical, it sounds like a security nightmare. Perhaps only coders should be allowed to design? /s Seriously though, designers should know that an incredible UI that loads slow is still a bad UX. They should care about this- even if they're not trying to save the world. I'm curious what this means in context: "who the industry is run by" (i.e. Google?) and also the referenced "toxic subset" (i.e. Advertisers, Bitcoin miners?) I know where I'm posting this (please don't hit me!) but I kind of wish this didn't provoke such a "developers vs everyone else" reaction. As right as the accusations of clownery and bad acting may be, honestly it just feels like a blaming the user. One thing I haven't seen brought up in other comments (if it has I'm sorry if I missed it) is javascript timer throttling. I think this kind of solution is really positive because it has minimal negative impact on user, doesn't require a million websites to change, and saves a ton of energy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sd9EVERCtRWKvnJXnP3iZ83fM3FLwDbjiyfMkaKWEYk/edit# https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sd9EVERCtRWKvnJXnP3iZ83f... Can we engineer more solutions like that?
  - krageon 6y ago
    I would like to say the industry is run by the people that create it. In practice, it is also run by people in the periphery. When I think of toxic devs I think of being dismissed when I talk about attention span and optimised page load speeds. And perhaps devs who feel that what is currently normal in javascript land (not knowing your stack, many dependencies, perhaps feeling like electron is an okay solution for a very simple problem) is acceptable because that's just how it's done right now. Both of those schools of thought have reasons for why they are so wide-spread, but they're wasteful and in my eyes an example of lazy engineering. That's acceptable as a conscious choice, but not as a default solution. I actually feel as if most of the designers understand efficiency better than the really problematic devs (especially as it relates to page load speed), but maybe I've met mostly really nice designers :) There's a lot of patching that could be done at the browser level and I think what you've proposed is a reasonable choice. The nice thing about timer throttling is that it's relatively easy to implement and nothing of value will be lost.
rimliu 6y ago
I am listening what justification you will bring for my browser downloading 3MB of crap to display 500 bytes of actual information which requires zero interactivity, and for sure does not need you hijacking the scrolling. The problem is that web devs got so involved with their toys, that the toys themselves became alpha and omega. Use case, users, accessibility: who cares! All I know is React (mind you, not even JavaScript, but React), so I will build everything with React. And maybe throw MobX in, because I just happen to learn it. Watching what's going on is part-amusing and part-horrifying. Alas, the latter part grows faster.

by bauerd 6y ago

Clearly the (blindingly obvious) answer is that this industry is run by clowns. With the mere exception of some enlightened guys on HN. Incredible what high horse some people here ride on.

lmilcin 6y ago

Except it is not "run by". It is caused by collective stupidity inherent to any group of random people that causes collectively suboptimal choices to be optimal from the point of any single group member. With all the processing power and bandwidth I still feel the Web is much poorer than it was 20 years ago.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

krageon 6y ago

I do not think "the industry" is run by clowns. There is just a toxic subset of the community that writes a lot of bad software and refuses to accept that that could have been avoided by performing some actual study. That's not a high horse, it's just having an interest in what you do and doing the best that you possibly can.

joshjdr 6y ago
I might be in the minority here, but I appreciate your toning down the hostility of this discussion. I believe if per the article, "the entire network already consumes 10% of global electricity production, with data traffic doubling roughly every two years" the article/share seems like a valid question/concern for the community. Do designers contribute to the problem? Surely yes. Should "all designers should learn to code"? I don't think so. Besides seeming impractical, it sounds like a security nightmare. Perhaps only coders should be allowed to design? /s Seriously though, designers should know that an incredible UI that loads slow is still a bad UX. They should care about this- even if they're not trying to save the world. I'm curious what this means in context: "who the industry is run by" (i.e. Google?) and also the referenced "toxic subset" (i.e. Advertisers, Bitcoin miners?) I know where I'm posting this (please don't hit me!) but I kind of wish this didn't provoke such a "developers vs everyone else" reaction. As right as the accusations of clownery and bad acting may be, honestly it just feels like a blaming the user. One thing I haven't seen brought up in other comments (if it has I'm sorry if I missed it) is javascript timer throttling. I think this kind of solution is really positive because it has minimal negative impact on user, doesn't require a million websites to change, and saves a ton of energy. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sd9EVERCtRWKvnJXnP3iZ83fM3FLwDbjiyfMkaKWEYk/edit# https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sd9EVERCtRWKvnJXnP3iZ83f... Can we engineer more solutions like that?
- krageon 6y ago
  I would like to say the industry is run by the people that create it. In practice, it is also run by people in the periphery. When I think of toxic devs I think of being dismissed when I talk about attention span and optimised page load speeds. And perhaps devs who feel that what is currently normal in javascript land (not knowing your stack, many dependencies, perhaps feeling like electron is an okay solution for a very simple problem) is acceptable because that's just how it's done right now. Both of those schools of thought have reasons for why they are so wide-spread, but they're wasteful and in my eyes an example of lazy engineering. That's acceptable as a conscious choice, but not as a default solution. I actually feel as if most of the designers understand efficiency better than the really problematic devs (especially as it relates to page load speed), but maybe I've met mostly really nice designers :) There's a lot of patching that could be done at the browser level and I think what you've proposed is a reasonable choice. The nice thing about timer throttling is that it's relatively easy to implement and nothing of value will be lost.

rimliu 6y ago

I am listening what justification you will bring for my browser downloading 3MB of crap to display 500 bytes of actual information which requires zero interactivity, and for sure does not need you hijacking the scrolling. The problem is that web devs got so involved with their toys, that the toys themselves became alpha and omega. Use case, users, accessibility: who cares! All I know is React (mind you, not even JavaScript, but React), so I will build everything with React. And maybe throw MobX in, because I just happen to learn it. Watching what's going on is part-amusing and part-horrifying. Alas, the latter part grows faster.