3 ms·
No one really thinks? Well I doubt you never opened a page and sick of it downloading megabytes of JS and breaking navigation because instead of links, the navi
by BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
No one really thinks? Well I doubt you never opened a page and sick of it downloading megabytes of JS and breaking navigation because instead of links, the navigation is say React with mouse events hooked and loading parts of the page in the background with spinner graphics.
Everything can be done poorly or well. And because modern sites are often done so poorly, the power of interactivity is also seen poorly (it allows you to be worse than if you didn't have it).
This does push some people into contemplating restrictions or subsets of the web platform as a standard. Where you simply can't do the travesties we see on popular sites today.
- hota_mazi 4y ago> No one really thinks? Well I doubt you never opened a page and sick of it downloading megabytes of JS and breaking navigation because instead of links, There will always be poor examples, but they don't invalidate the concept. Smart web pages, when done right, are an incredible time saver, and if you're not convinced, go visit, for example, the web page of your bank from 15 years ago on the Wayback machine.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y agoThe prevalence of poor examples does invalidate the concept. More accurately it does NOT invalidate it, but points out we need that concept refined. There's no selective pressure for making a page well-designed, light. Google is trying to to put better designed sites higher up, but they can't hide good content only because it provides horrible bloated UX. I'm not literally against JS? :D