4 ms·

> try to do as much web browsing as possible in Links2. It's a fast, lean browser with zero support for JavaScript and CSS. The latter means some sites look a b

> try to do as much web browsing as possible in Links2. It's a fast, lean browser with zero support for JavaScript and CSS. The latter means some sites look a bit funky. The former means some sites won't work at all. My usual strategy for sites that won't render without JavaScript is to simply ignore them. If they can't produce something worthwhile without scripting, it's probably not worthwhile at all. Honestly, I have a huge problem with this mentality even if I can agree with most other stuff. There is a lot of features and apps that are very useful that won't work without javascript. C'mon, this is a really bad point. It is not javascript itself that is bad, it's how people misuse it. Why would native apps be any better? People include tracking and alaytics in those as well and it's just even harder to block / know what actually gets monitored since the application is likely not sandboxed. I use many apps that require javascript that is really good and privacy motivated. Apps like, Fastmail.com, DI.FM, podd.app etc. I use adblockers and a pihole to take out the worst offenders and tracking scripts. The solution is not to go back in time and try to convince people to use sites without javascript, that will never work because there is a lot you cannot do without javascript. Drag and drop for example, video conference, photo editing etc etc. There are so many examples of apps that weren't possible before but now is. The web is clearly the best platform to be on since no one company can block you and you can self publish whenever you want. You are in control, not some shitty american company. I have a hard time actually believing that this person never use anything else than that shitty browser. I just don't buy it because the user experience is horrible. Instead, it's better to lead by example. Build apps that challanges the modern overuse of javascript and tracking / analytics. Don't be the old guy that simply complains how everything was better in the past, you couldn't do shit on the web in the past and now 80%-90% of the applications I use on a daily basis is web based.

TonyTrapp 6y ago
Good websites use graceful degradation. The basic features should keep working, even if more clunky, with JavaScript disabled. Of course I couldn't do photo editing with that concept in a browser, but that's not what I use a browser for anyway. A site that uses drag & drop most probably can implement a pure HTML version that may require a few more clicks but in the end the same action can be achieved. Having this fallback also has the advantage that it helps disabled users and users on poor network connections.
- ecmascript 6y ago
  > Good websites use graceful degradation. Well not necessarily, if you are like 1-2 devs it's really hard to manage to make such a web application if it's a complicated one. And for what reason? So that you can cater to the 0.00001% of the users because they hate javascript for no other reason than that they hate it? > Of course I couldn't do photo editing with that concept in a browser, but that's not what I use a browser for anyway. Maybe not you, but I certainly use my browser for that kind of purpose as one example of several that won't work with javascript disabled. > Having this fallback also has the advantage that it helps disabled users and users on poor network connections. Yeah maybe having an alternative for drag n drop helps disabled users but just removing javascript doesn't help them at all. I would actually argue the reverse. With javascript you can do text to speech for example for people that may have bad eye sight. On poor networks a well written PWA works a lot better than a traditional server side generated page, depending a bit on the application itself of course. I would agree that because SPA apps need to do stuff the browser does for you, people simply don't build resilient enough apps that handles failures well. There are many bad SPA apps out there, but also many good. I was travelling and used Airbnbs web app that was terrific when I had a bad connection. I could still open up cached content and access a lot of stuff even if some things wouldn't load which was very good for me. If you don't want to use javascript but still want a SPA like feel there are alternatives like Phoenix Liveview for example. They still use javascript, but it works without it since it's just server side generated stuff. Unfortunately it doesn't work well on bad connection or at all when offline but I guess most sites would be ok with that trade off.
  - TonyTrapp 6y ago
    > Well not necessarily, if you are like 1-2 devs it's really hard to manage to make such a web application if it's a complicated one. And for what reason? So that you can cater to the 0.00001% of the users because they hate javascript for no other reason than that they hate it? Just like mobile-first doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) "only mobile" but rather "write with the smallest screen in mind and then add features for bigger screens", you can first write the basics of the site using pure HTML and then put the JavaScript on top. It's not much more effort if done consciously. > Maybe not you, but I certainly use my browser for that kind of purpose as one example of several that won't work with javascript disabled. But that's not really relevant to the argument here. The author of the article doesn't say "all websites including those that mimic native apps should work without CSS and JavaScript" - that would be nonsense of course. Certain web-based apps will simply not work at all without JavaScript, that's fine, and it's fine if that's a reason for some person not to use them. But personally I think that websites (in particular those that are not "apps") should provide as much of their functionality as possible without requiring JS, where it's doable. A photo editing app certainly doesn't fall into that category, I think everyone is aware of that. > Yeah maybe having an alternative for drag n drop helps disabled users but just removing javascript doesn't help them at all. That's also not what I said and it wouldn't be graceful degradation. I'm all for having JavaScript that improves the usability of the site, as long as disabling it (or network failure preventing it from loading) won't break the site as a consequence. That, I think, is the key point here.
minerjoe 6y ago
> user experience is horrible I use links2 as my main web browser and my experience has been exactly the opposite of that. SPEED. links2 is lightning fast to browse. Almost every website I load renders in less than 100ms. Every single page. If it doesnt render, than it's a javascript issue and I may open it in firefox if I really care. So, by using links2, for almost all websites, I get instant loading, with no possible way for the browser to popup anything, distract me anyhow, just the data thankyouverymuch, get out of my way.

TonyTrapp 6y ago

Good websites use graceful degradation. The basic features should keep working, even if more clunky, with JavaScript disabled. Of course I couldn't do photo editing with that concept in a browser, but that's not what I use a browser for anyway. A site that uses drag & drop most probably can implement a pure HTML version that may require a few more clicks but in the end the same action can be achieved. Having this fallback also has the advantage that it helps disabled users and users on poor network connections.

ecmascript 6y ago
> Good websites use graceful degradation. Well not necessarily, if you are like 1-2 devs it's really hard to manage to make such a web application if it's a complicated one. And for what reason? So that you can cater to the 0.00001% of the users because they hate javascript for no other reason than that they hate it? > Of course I couldn't do photo editing with that concept in a browser, but that's not what I use a browser for anyway. Maybe not you, but I certainly use my browser for that kind of purpose as one example of several that won't work with javascript disabled. > Having this fallback also has the advantage that it helps disabled users and users on poor network connections. Yeah maybe having an alternative for drag n drop helps disabled users but just removing javascript doesn't help them at all. I would actually argue the reverse. With javascript you can do text to speech for example for people that may have bad eye sight. On poor networks a well written PWA works a lot better than a traditional server side generated page, depending a bit on the application itself of course. I would agree that because SPA apps need to do stuff the browser does for you, people simply don't build resilient enough apps that handles failures well. There are many bad SPA apps out there, but also many good. I was travelling and used Airbnbs web app that was terrific when I had a bad connection. I could still open up cached content and access a lot of stuff even if some things wouldn't load which was very good for me. If you don't want to use javascript but still want a SPA like feel there are alternatives like Phoenix Liveview for example. They still use javascript, but it works without it since it's just server side generated stuff. Unfortunately it doesn't work well on bad connection or at all when offline but I guess most sites would be ok with that trade off.
- TonyTrapp 6y ago
  > Well not necessarily, if you are like 1-2 devs it's really hard to manage to make such a web application if it's a complicated one. And for what reason? So that you can cater to the 0.00001% of the users because they hate javascript for no other reason than that they hate it? Just like mobile-first doesn't mean (or shouldn't mean) "only mobile" but rather "write with the smallest screen in mind and then add features for bigger screens", you can first write the basics of the site using pure HTML and then put the JavaScript on top. It's not much more effort if done consciously. > Maybe not you, but I certainly use my browser for that kind of purpose as one example of several that won't work with javascript disabled. But that's not really relevant to the argument here. The author of the article doesn't say "all websites including those that mimic native apps should work without CSS and JavaScript" - that would be nonsense of course. Certain web-based apps will simply not work at all without JavaScript, that's fine, and it's fine if that's a reason for some person not to use them. But personally I think that websites (in particular those that are not "apps") should provide as much of their functionality as possible without requiring JS, where it's doable. A photo editing app certainly doesn't fall into that category, I think everyone is aware of that. > Yeah maybe having an alternative for drag n drop helps disabled users but just removing javascript doesn't help them at all. That's also not what I said and it wouldn't be graceful degradation. I'm all for having JavaScript that improves the usability of the site, as long as disabling it (or network failure preventing it from loading) won't break the site as a consequence. That, I think, is the key point here.

minerjoe 6y ago

> user experience is horrible I use links2 as my main web browser and my experience has been exactly the opposite of that. SPEED. links2 is lightning fast to browse. Almost every website I load renders in less than 100ms. Every single page. If it doesnt render, than it's a javascript issue and I may open it in firefox if I really care. So, by using links2, for almost all websites, I get instant loading, with no possible way for the browser to popup anything, distract me anyhow, just the data thankyouverymuch, get out of my way.