5 ms·

I'm in love with the design of that website. It's clean, there are subtle graphic changes such as the pixel art that changes when you toggle the light switch, a

I'm in love with the design of that website. It's clean, there are subtle graphic changes such as the pixel art that changes when you toggle the light switch, a really fantastic job there (one small remark, hovering over the pixel art on Chrome makes a scroll bar appear due to the transform). I want one. It's also proof that you can make a simple and pleasant experience with a JS framework, if you focus on the essentials, there's no need to boycott JS entirely in favour of the old web, these frameworks get rid of a lot of the boilerplate when starting from scratch. I'm an avid supporter of SvelteKit (the framework used on that website) and how they want to make the web less SPA/JS again. In this example, navigation is fast and client side, but can fall back to SSR if JavaScript is disabled, fails to load or hasn't loaded yet. There is no heavy runtime with virtual DOM diffing. Resources are cached and a page reload only sends ~17 kB over the wire on a large blog post, showing an excellent use of Tailwind CSS. It renders on Cloudflare Workers close to the user wherever you are in the world, with zero vendor lock-in if you want to stick it on a VPS.

fruit2020 4y ago
Why do people mention so often about js being disabled? It’s such an insignificant use case imho. Ssr(in js world) is mostly for public pages who get scanned by search bots, right?
- rossvor 4y ago
  Probably because people who browse with js (mostly) disabled are over-represented on HN. So for us it is a significant use case.
- likortera 4y ago
  Can't agree more with you. In my more than 20 years in this industry I'm still to find one single person at work, or a single customer with JavaScript disabled. At this point if you have JavaScript disabled is your problem. It's like having a car and not wanting to put gas on it and pushing it around and complaining why you have to push your car. Not saying we don't abuse its usage, but having it disables is just extremist
- marcus_cemes 4y ago
  A website that is able to function without JavaScript increases its accessibility, that doesn't mean that the user explicitly disabled JavaScript. You could be on a train in a 5G-equipped country with an unreliable connection. Have you came across a website having problems with stylesheets completely missing, due to CORS, caching, etc? If the document is able to carry out navigation, without having to rely on downloading a non-negligeable amount of JS to hydrate the page, it improves the experience for that 90th percentile enourmously. Us web developers are often privileged with a very good internet connections. It's not necessarily anti-JS thinking, and SSR for crawlers generally as no longer been relevant for a number of years, it improves UX. Edit: this also reminds me of [1], a 8.5 MB HTML file with 27.5k tweets was faster to paint than a single tweet in a React application. It depends on whether the UX can be improved by using more JS, for most websites I think less is more. [1]: https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20&t=VycupaP8XjUOzMGPiM7CNw https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20...

fruit2020 4y ago

Why do people mention so often about js being disabled? It’s such an insignificant use case imho. Ssr(in js world) is mostly for public pages who get scanned by search bots, right?

rossvor 4y ago
Probably because people who browse with js (mostly) disabled are over-represented on HN. So for us it is a significant use case.
likortera 4y ago
Can't agree more with you. In my more than 20 years in this industry I'm still to find one single person at work, or a single customer with JavaScript disabled. At this point if you have JavaScript disabled is your problem. It's like having a car and not wanting to put gas on it and pushing it around and complaining why you have to push your car. Not saying we don't abuse its usage, but having it disables is just extremist
marcus_cemes 4y ago
A website that is able to function without JavaScript increases its accessibility, that doesn't mean that the user explicitly disabled JavaScript. You could be on a train in a 5G-equipped country with an unreliable connection. Have you came across a website having problems with stylesheets completely missing, due to CORS, caching, etc? If the document is able to carry out navigation, without having to rely on downloading a non-negligeable amount of JS to hydrate the page, it improves the experience for that 90th percentile enourmously. Us web developers are often privileged with a very good internet connections. It's not necessarily anti-JS thinking, and SSR for crawlers generally as no longer been relevant for a number of years, it improves UX. Edit: this also reminds me of [1], a 8.5 MB HTML file with 27.5k tweets was faster to paint than a single tweet in a React application. It depends on whether the UX can be improved by using more JS, for most websites I think less is more. [1]: https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20&t=VycupaP8XjUOzMGPiM7CNw https://twitter.com/zachleat/status/1169998370041208832?s=20...