4 ms·
I think the question is: Is it content that I still want to access in a few years? For example, Facebook with its terrible URLs and JavaScript everywhere is ve
by gurkendoktor 15y ago
I think the question is: Is it content that I still want to access in a few years?
For example, Facebook with its terrible URLs and JavaScript everywhere is very fragile. Hard to cache, hard to archive, but who cares? If the whole site went bankrupt in ten years, would many people actually export their data?
Or a blog on Rails, where every article becomes obsolete after a year. Or a restaurant website. Those sites can use all the magic they want.
But if you write about mathematics or art or other things that should pass the test of time, please make it bare-bones, semantic HTML. If I really like it, I can just archive it and show it to my children later. It's like using hover for menus, who'd guessed that this would break for millions of devices one day?
- gwern 15y ago> For example, Facebook with its terrible URLs and JavaScript everywhere is very fragile. Hard to cache, hard to archive, but who cares? If the whole site went bankrupt in ten years, would many people actually export their data? If I had been coming up with examples of sites where people would want to export their data in such an event, Facebook would have been number 2 or 3 on my list, after an email or a document site (eg. Gmail or Google Docs).
- robin_reala 15y agoThis site is barebones semantic HTML. Turn off styling and JS and you’re left with something eminently readable or consumable.
- gurkendoktor 15y agoThanks for pointing it out. I didn't want to question this particular site. That this is possible is indeed a big step forward from Flash.
- unconed 15y agoSo... did it load fast? Was the content readable, selectable and natively scrollable? Did I break any of your regular habits, like 'back' or 'open in new tab' or copy/pasting links? Did you get a good sense of the site's contents and purpose from your first visit? Does everything remain accessible if you turn off JavaScript? It's like everyone assumes nobody but them knows how to make websites.
- gurkendoktor 15y agoMy apologies - this site is indeed a masterpiece. The usability is much better than most HTML websites, no need to mention Flash. But in the sense in which HTML5 is going to replace Flash, I am pessimistic that many websites will go to the same lengths. And where there is more code, there are more possibilities to break in the future. To be nitpicky about usability of newfangled stuff: Using web fonts disables the built-in dictionary on OS X, both in Safari and in Chrome. (I am so happy that this is one thing Facebook has not yet embraced.)
- unconed 15y agoI don't disagree, but I think this is a void easily fixed with the right libraries and frameworks. Remember the web before jQuery? You couldn't get most developers to touch JS with a ten foot pole...