6 ms·

It just violates the KISS principle too much when the site in question is mostly presenting documents. I can see JS being useful if you have some sort of SPA a

by lynx23 3y ago

It just violates the KISS principle too much when the site in question is mostly presenting documents. I can see JS being useful if you have some sort of SPA app. But essentially docs with JS are a total no-go. Why do I need to fire up a 50MB binary to read a simple document again? Ahh, because reasons, I see...

chefandy 3y ago
Whether or not something is 'simple' depends on what type of simplicity you're optimizing for and your use case/requirements. Front-end js frameworks could make development much simpler than relying on vanilla code or back-end frameworks to accomplish the same tasks. Personally, I don't see the benefit of defining simplicity by how much work the browser has to do unless there's a specific, tangible requirement that demands it. Accessibility isn't any more of a problem than it is with HTML. For screen readers, et al it's still something that needs to be deliberately incorporated into the document structure, and modern frameworks are more than capable of handling it. What about older browsers with crappy JS implementations? Front-end frameworks have tools designed to extend support to much older browsers with limited JS support. The percentage of people who have access to a web browser but can't use javascript applications is vanishingly small. When I've worked with people making publicly-funded tools for which accessibility must accommodate people with very limited technical means-- unhoused people, for example-- developers tend to skip the web interface altogether and go with SMS combined with telephone or in-person service. JS is not the barrier. Obviously that 50MB binary is hyperbole, but the baseline Vue include is 16k. It's certainly easier to make make front-end JS heavy and unreliable than plain static HTML, but it's pretty easy to avoid it, and design that poor would probably fuck up plain-old HTML and CSS just as bad. The fact is that most users do appreciate the dynamic features and responsiveness that is only possible with js. If you don't, and want to exclude yourself from modern web functionality, then be my guest. I think it's pretty strange that you'd expect other people to go out of their way to accommodate your rather uncommon preferences to make an experience most users consider worse and doesn't work towards satisfying any tangible business needs.
- lynx23 3y ago
  I know this discussion is lost and the times have changed. However, two things I cant let stand: Using semantic HTML tags is all you need for proper accessibility of text documents. Calling that out as being specia attention for accessibility is false in my opinion. And yes, you just found one of these very rare people. I still spend 99% of my work day in tmux on a plain text console. I can, of course, fire up Firefox on a second machine I have next to me for just these problems, but it breaks my workflow not being able to read a text document with a text browser. Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported. I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents.
  - chefandy 3y ago
    > Calling that out as being specia attention for accessibility is false in my opinion. I didn't. I said that accessibility is no more of a problem for js-fueled pages than HTML pages, which was not always true. > Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported Then don't say people are making websites wrong when by common practice you're using the wrong tools to interact with them. > I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents. Like I said, feel free to opt out of the modern internet. It's your life. It's just flatly absurd to be in your position and accuse developers of having poor practices when they provide an objectively better experience for probably 9999 out of 10000 other users by using widely accepted, standard, reliable practices that often require less development time.
    - Zanfa 3y ago
      There’s no reason to think SPAs are in any way objectively better in terms of either UX or DX. I can’t count the number of SPAs that manage to break basic browser functionality like links, back/forward navigation and scrolling. It’s insane.
      - lynx23 3y ago
        Well, there is obviously a conflict in UI experience. I can very well see how back/forward breaks the idea of a web "app", because what would backward mean in a classical app, except for maybe undo? I tend to put web addresses in roughly these two categories: those that try to be an app, and those which just present a document. True, inline editing may blur the line, but thats how I try to see it. IOW, I am not mad at someone killing my back/forward buttons if these just dont make any sense in the context of the app they are providing. OTOH, I am pretty pissed if someone steps outside of classic HTML if all they are doing is basically prviding text/images.

by lynx23 3y ago

chefandy 3y ago

Whether or not something is 'simple' depends on what type of simplicity you're optimizing for and your use case/requirements. Front-end js frameworks could make development much simpler than relying on vanilla code or back-end frameworks to accomplish the same tasks. Personally, I don't see the benefit of defining simplicity by how much work the browser has to do unless there's a specific, tangible requirement that demands it. Accessibility isn't any more of a problem than it is with HTML. For screen readers, et al it's still something that needs to be deliberately incorporated into the document structure, and modern frameworks are more than capable of handling it. What about older browsers with crappy JS implementations? Front-end frameworks have tools designed to extend support to much older browsers with limited JS support. The percentage of people who have access to a web browser but can't use javascript applications is vanishingly small. When I've worked with people making publicly-funded tools for which accessibility must accommodate people with very limited technical means-- unhoused people, for example-- developers tend to skip the web interface altogether and go with SMS combined with telephone or in-person service. JS is not the barrier. Obviously that 50MB binary is hyperbole, but the baseline Vue include is 16k. It's certainly easier to make make front-end JS heavy and unreliable than plain static HTML, but it's pretty easy to avoid it, and design that poor would probably fuck up plain-old HTML and CSS just as bad. The fact is that most users do appreciate the dynamic features and responsiveness that is only possible with js. If you don't, and want to exclude yourself from modern web functionality, then be my guest. I think it's pretty strange that you'd expect other people to go out of their way to accommodate your rather uncommon preferences to make an experience most users consider worse and doesn't work towards satisfying any tangible business needs.

lynx23 3y ago
I know this discussion is lost and the times have changed. However, two things I cant let stand: Using semantic HTML tags is all you need for proper accessibility of text documents. Calling that out as being specia attention for accessibility is false in my opinion. And yes, you just found one of these very rare people. I still spend 99% of my work day in tmux on a plain text console. I can, of course, fire up Firefox on a second machine I have next to me for just these problems, but it breaks my workflow not being able to read a text document with a text browser. Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported. I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents.
- chefandy 3y ago
  > Calling that out as being specia attention for accessibility is false in my opinion. I didn't. I said that accessibility is no more of a problem for js-fueled pages than HTML pages, which was not always true. > Dont even bother telling me that this use case is no longer supported Then don't say people are making websites wrong when by common practice you're using the wrong tools to interact with them. > I know that. That doesn't change my technical opinion that JS is way too much of a gun for documents. Like I said, feel free to opt out of the modern internet. It's your life. It's just flatly absurd to be in your position and accuse developers of having poor practices when they provide an objectively better experience for probably 9999 out of 10000 other users by using widely accepted, standard, reliable practices that often require less development time.
  - Zanfa 3y ago
    There’s no reason to think SPAs are in any way objectively better in terms of either UX or DX. I can’t count the number of SPAs that manage to break basic browser functionality like links, back/forward navigation and scrolling. It’s insane.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      Well, there is obviously a conflict in UI experience. I can very well see how back/forward breaks the idea of a web "app", because what would backward mean in a classical app, except for maybe undo? I tend to put web addresses in roughly these two categories: those that try to be an app, and those which just present a document. True, inline editing may blur the line, but thats how I try to see it. IOW, I am not mad at someone killing my back/forward buttons if these just dont make any sense in the context of the app they are providing. OTOH, I am pretty pissed if someone steps outside of classic HTML if all they are doing is basically prviding text/images.