4 ms·

One alternative would be the web as today but without JavaScript. I think 90% of what sucks about current web goes away if js goes away. I don’t like executing

One alternative would be the web as today but without JavaScript. I think 90% of what sucks about current web goes away if js goes away. I don’t like executing arbitrary code from the web anyway. Even if the browser sandboxes it. Most of what websites do with JavaScript is not in my interest anyway.

sodimel 4y ago
I did a calculation a while back [0] that showed that there's 30x more js than html on the web today. [0]: https://misc.l3m.in/txt/js_ratio.txt https://misc.l3m.in/txt/js_ratio.txt
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
I find the layout that browsers use really annoying, and the way HTML and CSS are used to modify the layout very unintuitive. To get something to show up on the screen in the way you want, you have to keep changing lines of code and experimenting until it finally shows up the way you want. This is really annoying and unnecessary. Tools like PowerPoint and MS Publisher have allowed (for decades) the ability to just drag and drop anything you want onto a screen, save it, then send it to someone, and it will display for them exactly how it displayed for me. Text, pictures, sound, video. And it supports clickable hyperlinks. Which was the entire point of the web! But for some reason, web browsers are 10,000 times more complicated than these other ancient tools. If we really want to make the web less braindead, less bloaty, easier to use, we should throw away the annoying crap we have now, and start from scratch with something that is just easy for the average person. We don't have to regress to text terminals and Gopher, or just use browsers without JS. We can make something new that is both easy and useful.
- gbalduzzi 4y ago
  > Tools like PowerPoint and MS Publisher have allowed (for decades) the ability to just drag and drop anything you want onto a screen, save it, then send it to someone, and it will display for them exactly how it displayed for me The tools you mentioned have a fixed viewport size, the web does NOT have it. 99% of the difficulties of a web design is in supporting all possibile client screen sizes / ratios. A powerpoint like experience is trivially to build, just use position: absolute and place everything pixel by pixel. I'm not aware of any GUI for creating responsive content (unless you limit the content to a simple flow of text)
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    > 99% of the difficulties of a web design is in supporting all possibile client screen sizes / ratios. For a web designer. For a normal person, 99% of the difficulties of web design is that they need to get a PhD in HTML, CSS, & JavaScript, in order to make some text and images show up. PowerPoint/Publisher are usable by anyone. The Web today is basically an employment scheme. > I'm not aware of any GUI for creating responsive content If all you want is to show someone some text and pictures, that should be (is, actually) incredibly simple. If you want to show someone "responsive content", that is a different use case. It's a custom program at that point. So just ship them a custom program. It used to be common, trivial actually, to mock up a program in a visual IDE and send it to someone. The program would be small and fast and networked. We used a thing called Visual Basic, and nearly anyone with the most basic programming skills could use it. Worked great. Today we do the same thing, only they are called "mobile apps" and are written in Java for a dedicated mobile operating system. Just like years ago, these are proprietary platforms run by quasi-monopolies, so you have to make your program multiple times to send it to everyone. But we could improve on that.
    - gbalduzzi 4y ago
      > If you want to show someone "responsive content", that is a different use case. No it's not! You create your content with text and images, you send it to two friends: one opens it in a 27" inch monitor, the other one on his mobile phone. How big should the images be? How big the text? What happens if there is a text on the left and an images on the right, and you watch it on a mobile phone? should it go down, should the image resize to occupy at maximum half the viewport? what happens when the text overflows? The reason you can do it on a Oowerpoint or Publisher is that the viewport is the same, you position it and you are done. The user on the desktop will see it very small, the user on the phone will need to keep scrolling and dragging. If you are ok with these limitations, there are plenty of tools available to share content! You named them. If you want better control, there are no easy way of doing it, there are no example of this problem being solved, and I don't think it's a web problem.
      - 4y ago
gspencley 4y ago
The irony is that the introduction of XHR was intended to avoid page reloads which were seen as a major source of inefficiency. Not all websites need to be dynamic, though. And I'm with you in spirit. I just think that throwing out JavaScript entirely throws out the baby with the bath-water for a lot of websites. In theory, you can use XHR and client-side rendering to make things smaller, not bloatier. Fetch the HTML once with first content, then fetch only content updates at the user's request without reloading the page. This can result in better cache efficiency and improved render times. But a lot of people might object on principle to the idea of using XHR requests and dynamic behaviour in something called "small web."
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
CSS still gives a lot of opportunities for abuse: crooked web fonts, colors, padding, spacing, text size, positioning, cookie consent, spinners, side bars, hover bars, even somehow manages to mess scrolling. We basically need only html as if it's old good text as it was initially intended to be displayed as the user wants.

sodimel 4y ago

I did a calculation a while back [0] that showed that there's 30x more js than html on the web today. [0]: https://misc.l3m.in/txt/js_ratio.txt https://misc.l3m.in/txt/js_ratio.txt

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

I find the layout that browsers use really annoying, and the way HTML and CSS are used to modify the layout very unintuitive. To get something to show up on the screen in the way you want, you have to keep changing lines of code and experimenting until it finally shows up the way you want. This is really annoying and unnecessary. Tools like PowerPoint and MS Publisher have allowed (for decades) the ability to just drag and drop anything you want onto a screen, save it, then send it to someone, and it will display for them exactly how it displayed for me. Text, pictures, sound, video. And it supports clickable hyperlinks. Which was the entire point of the web! But for some reason, web browsers are 10,000 times more complicated than these other ancient tools. If we really want to make the web less braindead, less bloaty, easier to use, we should throw away the annoying crap we have now, and start from scratch with something that is just easy for the average person. We don't have to regress to text terminals and Gopher, or just use browsers without JS. We can make something new that is both easy and useful.

gbalduzzi 4y ago
> Tools like PowerPoint and MS Publisher have allowed (for decades) the ability to just drag and drop anything you want onto a screen, save it, then send it to someone, and it will display for them exactly how it displayed for me The tools you mentioned have a fixed viewport size, the web does NOT have it. 99% of the difficulties of a web design is in supporting all possibile client screen sizes / ratios. A powerpoint like experience is trivially to build, just use position: absolute and place everything pixel by pixel. I'm not aware of any GUI for creating responsive content (unless you limit the content to a simple flow of text)
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  > 99% of the difficulties of a web design is in supporting all possibile client screen sizes / ratios. For a web designer. For a normal person, 99% of the difficulties of web design is that they need to get a PhD in HTML, CSS, & JavaScript, in order to make some text and images show up. PowerPoint/Publisher are usable by anyone. The Web today is basically an employment scheme. > I'm not aware of any GUI for creating responsive content If all you want is to show someone some text and pictures, that should be (is, actually) incredibly simple. If you want to show someone "responsive content", that is a different use case. It's a custom program at that point. So just ship them a custom program. It used to be common, trivial actually, to mock up a program in a visual IDE and send it to someone. The program would be small and fast and networked. We used a thing called Visual Basic, and nearly anyone with the most basic programming skills could use it. Worked great. Today we do the same thing, only they are called "mobile apps" and are written in Java for a dedicated mobile operating system. Just like years ago, these are proprietary platforms run by quasi-monopolies, so you have to make your program multiple times to send it to everyone. But we could improve on that.
  - gbalduzzi 4y ago
    > If you want to show someone "responsive content", that is a different use case. No it's not! You create your content with text and images, you send it to two friends: one opens it in a 27" inch monitor, the other one on his mobile phone. How big should the images be? How big the text? What happens if there is a text on the left and an images on the right, and you watch it on a mobile phone? should it go down, should the image resize to occupy at maximum half the viewport? what happens when the text overflows? The reason you can do it on a Oowerpoint or Publisher is that the viewport is the same, you position it and you are done. The user on the desktop will see it very small, the user on the phone will need to keep scrolling and dragging. If you are ok with these limitations, there are plenty of tools available to share content! You named them. If you want better control, there are no easy way of doing it, there are no example of this problem being solved, and I don't think it's a web problem.
    - 4y ago

gspencley 4y ago

The irony is that the introduction of XHR was intended to avoid page reloads which were seen as a major source of inefficiency. Not all websites need to be dynamic, though. And I'm with you in spirit. I just think that throwing out JavaScript entirely throws out the baby with the bath-water for a lot of websites. In theory, you can use XHR and client-side rendering to make things smaller, not bloatier. Fetch the HTML once with first content, then fetch only content updates at the user's request without reloading the page. This can result in better cache efficiency and improved render times. But a lot of people might object on principle to the idea of using XHR requests and dynamic behaviour in something called "small web."

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

CSS still gives a lot of opportunities for abuse: crooked web fonts, colors, padding, spacing, text size, positioning, cookie consent, spinners, side bars, hover bars, even somehow manages to mess scrolling. We basically need only html as if it's old good text as it was initially intended to be displayed as the user wants.