2 ms·
I can’t put my finger on it, but something feels odd to me about these React based or similar static site generators that don’t depend entirely on server side r
by AnonHP 6y ago
I can’t put my finger on it, but something feels odd to me about these React based or similar static site generators that don’t depend entirely on server side rendering (though that seems to be an option). Perhaps a fraction of a percentage of web users block JavaScript by default. What would their experience be on such sites? Do these non-SSR frameworks handle accessibility well? I’d appreciate it if someone could do a comparison on how these frameworks do compared to the ones that are typically server side rendering only.
- mpalmer 6y agoI've only got experience with Next.js, but I think it's less on the framework and more on the developer to design a site that degrades gracefully. The framework's job is to upgrade gracefully - e.g. to facilitate building runtime functionality that meshes well with the statically rendered output. Next.js and its fellows let you statically render anything you want. It can be a fully static output if you like. The benefit of building it all out of React components is that there's no integration or binding that has to be done between the "static" elements of the page and the dynamic ones. They're one and the same, the only difference is the first render happens at build time. A Next.js page that degrades gracefully is just one that's useful even if it only renders once.