4 ms·

Nice list of rare edge cases. Worrying about somebody using „Chrome data saver mode“ before your startup gets 100k hits per month means to me that your focus i

Nice list of rare edge cases. Worrying about somebody using „Chrome data saver mode“ before your startup gets 100k hits per month means to me that your focus is completely off. Instead, perhaps improve your core product and talk to actual users today?

grayhatter 5y ago
You know I want to saw a video where Linus Torvalds describes good code as code that doesn't have to handle edge cases differently from non-edge cases. HTML will always render, so why isn't that always the minimum default? why is starting with HTML and adding JavaScript harder?
- axiosgunnar 5y ago
  Feel free to try to tick all the UX best practices from Nielsen Norman with pure HTML, and be done by the end of this week since we would like to ship. See where the problem is?
  - grayhatter 5y ago
    > See where the problem is? No, I don't. In part because I don't tick boxes, I just (try to) build good shit. Also because I don't expect every UX "best practice" from [random internet authority] from a site with JS disabled. I just expect the text on the site to render somewhere readable. Usually, the argument from the "js is bad" crowd, isn't that the site should be as functional with JS disabled... only... that the basic content... should still render...
    - axiosgunnar 5y ago
      You are 0.001% of my visitors and any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs. If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you. Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users.
      - spookthesunset 5y ago
        I’ve been in web tech for almost 20 years. Every time, in every company I’ve worked for, the discussion of “what about people with no JavaScript” eventually gets brought up… every engineer in the room says “who cares about those people” and we move on. It’s never been worth worrying about non JavaScript clients (except search engines)
        grayhatter 5y ago
        > I’ve been in web tech for almost 20 years. That's probably the difference in experience then. I've been a software engineer for almost as long, but I'd never consider describing my work as just "web tech", and the engineers are all willing to make a reasonable minimum effort to at least render "something" without JS. The difference is probably between web developers, and software engineers generally.
      - grayhatter 5y ago
        > You are 0.001% of my visitors My javascript user metric collecting service says all my users have JS... Imagine that :P > any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs. I'm not convinced that's rational, but all the same. Any rational engineer would rather do the job correctly, rather than what's easy. Which is what the argument comes down to. One the minimum always works, the other way is easier (for you). > If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you. Don't be sorry in this case, if this is the tradeoff you've decided to make. That's totally fine. It's your project, and your code. You absolutely should make the decisions you think are best. I'm just some random idiot on the internet who thinks your decisions are bad, and your framework is a dumpster fire waiting to implode. I like to write code that works, and I think code that works in every case is objectively better than code that works in most cases, and is easier to write. But I suspect the code we write and projects we care about are very different. The difference seems to be that I care more about the code than I do about the cash. You frame all decisions from the context of a business trying to make money. You're right when you say: > Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users. That is probably the best way to make the most money with the smallest expense. But I have a different set of standards for the work I do. And just to be clear, please note I didn't say my standards for my work are better than yours, only that they're different.
MattGaiser 5y ago
I would be fascinated to know if “optimize for Chrome data saver mode” has ever been included on a ticket or epic anywhere.
- willmacdonald 5y ago
  Not exactly the same, but regarding a slightly similar setting in browsers. I had problems getting some 3rd party widget working in a webpage. I had enabled 'Do Not Track' in the browser, which broke the widget. I'm sure the 3rd party provider regrets listening to the privacy nerd who insisted on supporting this header.
2bitencryption 5y ago
Yeah, it seems like the page answers its own question. "Everyone has JavaScript, right?" After reading the page... ...basically, yeah.
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  This is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy in disguise. What is more likely; that JS is working correctly for everybody, or that at least one of the article's listed conditions applies and JS is not working correctly for everybody?

grayhatter 5y ago

You know I want to saw a video where Linus Torvalds describes good code as code that doesn't have to handle edge cases differently from non-edge cases. HTML will always render, so why isn't that always the minimum default? why is starting with HTML and adding JavaScript harder?

axiosgunnar 5y ago
Feel free to try to tick all the UX best practices from Nielsen Norman with pure HTML, and be done by the end of this week since we would like to ship. See where the problem is?
- grayhatter 5y ago
  > See where the problem is? No, I don't. In part because I don't tick boxes, I just (try to) build good shit. Also because I don't expect every UX "best practice" from [random internet authority] from a site with JS disabled. I just expect the text on the site to render somewhere readable. Usually, the argument from the "js is bad" crowd, isn't that the site should be as functional with JS disabled... only... that the basic content... should still render...
  - axiosgunnar 5y ago
    You are 0.001% of my visitors and any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs. If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you. Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users.
    - spookthesunset 5y ago
      I’ve been in web tech for almost 20 years. Every time, in every company I’ve worked for, the discussion of “what about people with no JavaScript” eventually gets brought up… every engineer in the room says “who cares about those people” and we move on. It’s never been worth worrying about non JavaScript clients (except search engines)
      - grayhatter 5y ago
        > I’ve been in web tech for almost 20 years. That's probably the difference in experience then. I've been a software engineer for almost as long, but I'd never consider describing my work as just "web tech", and the engineers are all willing to make a reasonable minimum effort to at least render "something" without JS. The difference is probably between web developers, and software engineers generally.
    - grayhatter 5y ago
      > You are 0.001% of my visitors My javascript user metric collecting service says all my users have JS... Imagine that :P > any rational business will refuse to invest resources to serve your unique needs. I'm not convinced that's rational, but all the same. Any rational engineer would rather do the job correctly, rather than what's easy. Which is what the argument comes down to. One the minimum always works, the other way is easier (for you). > If my current frontend framework of choice happens to not render any HTML without JS, I am sorry, my site will be inaccessible to you. Don't be sorry in this case, if this is the tradeoff you've decided to make. That's totally fine. It's your project, and your code. You absolutely should make the decisions you think are best. I'm just some random idiot on the internet who thinks your decisions are bad, and your framework is a dumpster fire waiting to implode. I like to write code that works, and I think code that works in every case is objectively better than code that works in most cases, and is easier to write. But I suspect the code we write and projects we care about are very different. The difference seems to be that I care more about the code than I do about the cash. You frame all decisions from the context of a business trying to make money. You're right when you say: > Because that frontend framework allows me to iterate much faster and improve my product for the vast majority of users. That is probably the best way to make the most money with the smallest expense. But I have a different set of standards for the work I do. And just to be clear, please note I didn't say my standards for my work are better than yours, only that they're different.

MattGaiser 5y ago

I would be fascinated to know if “optimize for Chrome data saver mode” has ever been included on a ticket or epic anywhere.

willmacdonald 5y ago
Not exactly the same, but regarding a slightly similar setting in browsers. I had problems getting some 3rd party widget working in a webpage. I had enabled 'Do Not Track' in the browser, which broke the widget. I'm sure the 3rd party provider regrets listening to the privacy nerd who insisted on supporting this header.

2bitencryption 5y ago

Yeah, it seems like the page answers its own question. "Everyone has JavaScript, right?" After reading the page... ...basically, yeah.

myWindoonn 5y ago
This is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy in disguise. What is more likely; that JS is working correctly for everybody, or that at least one of the article's listed conditions applies and JS is not working correctly for everybody?