6 ms·

> it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly That's exactly where the hate comes from: I don't want you, the web designer,

> it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly That's exactly where the hate comes from: I don't want you, the web designer, to have the power to create experiences, because you (collectively) use that power to force experiences on me that I don't want to have.

d-lisp 3y ago
I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform. I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  Oh, well, that sounds fine! Sorry to mistake your meaning. I wish you could have gotten what you wanted in a way which did not have to change the fundamental nature of the web.
  - d-lisp 3y ago
    Well, most of the websites that proposes an experience are often rather lacking information-wise, no ? Don't you know of any website that reads like simple text ?
- nottorp 3y ago
  Yeah, the problem is everyone and their mother are "creating experiences" instead of giving me the info I'm actually looking for...
  - qup 3y ago
    The problem you're describing exists in your own expectations.
  - d-lisp 3y ago
    Honestly, I don't understand what you're referring to: are you intentionally visiting websites "you hate" ? I mean, there are a lot of good websites out of here that aren't proposing an experience and that allows you to read text properly, no ?
    - nottorp 3y ago
      When I search for something I visit whatever I can find, no? Until I find what I'm looking for.
      - d-lisp 3y ago
        I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.
        d-lisp 3y ago
        Replace X with Y since X is a thing.
        nottorp 3y ago
        > I go to whatever website that has an authority on X But what do you do when the website gives you an 'experience' instead of info about X? And no, <the company formerly known as Twitter> has no right to take X for themselves. Keep using it for unknown/unspecified items.
Almondsetat 3y ago
Don't visit the website
- getpokedagain 3y ago
  I hope we can have a more reasoned debate than this. This topic is really important and frankly there's so much to it I hope that hearing others I can learn more. When I read some of the thread above what I am hearing is: "I don't want people to be able to run programs on my computer without asking explicitly". Which is exactly what the modern web and modern web browsers enable. If you learned computing in the 90's you were very much told not to install things you do not trust. Everyone remembers downloading some game from the internet and suddenly their OS was trashed via malware or non subtle virus. The modern web is essentially a giant way to circumvent that. Sure only your browser can get shitted up but its the same browser you do your finance in and has access to your GPU. Certainly it enables easy sharing of programs but so does something like java. Most OS's still recognize a .jar file as an executable and ask you about it before you can run. They never do that before javascript starts processing in your browser. There are several other issues here such as: - Many essential processes such as banking, medical records and education all rely upon the modern web paradigm at this point. One cannot simply access them on an e-reader or using a browser with javascript disabled. Are you saying you think that someone should be left uneducated or lack medicine if they don't like running an unsecured browser? Should those with privacy concerns just incur the cost of having one "safe" device and one they do their "interacting with the web" one? - The modern web sandbox includes very high access to sensitive things. Many people's file systems are from a cloud platform all of which malware in the browser can access for example. - The modern web can be highly performant but generally its not and requires ever increasing hardware cost simply to do things like read a book.
  - takluyver 3y ago
    Ironically, that decision to run Javascript without a prompt was probably a huge step forward for the security of most users. The 'do you trust this' model of security doesn't work well in practice once you can download programs from the internet - there's too much stuff you need to or want to trust to get on with things, and even if it's not actively malicious, it may be vulnerable. Because Javascript can run in the browser without the assumption that you completely trust it, browser developers have put a load of work into restricting what it can do, even within the browser. Of course, sometimes there are holes in the sandbox - nothing is perfect - but I think it's vastly better than giving any program you decide to run complete access to your computer. (Better for the majority, that is. If you're truly paranoid and have enough time, explicitly deciding what to trust can be better. But I think that's <1% of people - certainly not including me.)
darepublic 3y ago
How is that different from native apps. I'd take the imposition of a website over the imposition to download a mobile app anytime
- paulddraper 3y ago
  It doesn't. But on HN everything is terrible and get off my lawn.
- GTP 3y ago
  That's actually a matter of taste: in many cases I prefer desktop applications instead.
  - 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
    Do you sandbox them? I wouldn't trust random apps running on my PC
  - darepublic 3y ago
    I like desktop games of course and for coding. But for form type applications just make it web

d-lisp 3y ago

I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform. I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.

marssaxman 3y ago
Oh, well, that sounds fine! Sorry to mistake your meaning. I wish you could have gotten what you wanted in a way which did not have to change the fundamental nature of the web.
- d-lisp 3y ago
  Well, most of the websites that proposes an experience are often rather lacking information-wise, no ? Don't you know of any website that reads like simple text ?
nottorp 3y ago
Yeah, the problem is everyone and their mother are "creating experiences" instead of giving me the info I'm actually looking for...
- qup 3y ago
  The problem you're describing exists in your own expectations.
- d-lisp 3y ago
  Honestly, I don't understand what you're referring to: are you intentionally visiting websites "you hate" ? I mean, there are a lot of good websites out of here that aren't proposing an experience and that allows you to read text properly, no ?
  - nottorp 3y ago
    When I search for something I visit whatever I can find, no? Until I find what I'm looking for.
    - d-lisp 3y ago
      I may be biased but whenever I search something I go to whatever website that has an authority on X. When I don't know I who has authority on X I search for "recommendations about X", or I go to the website in charge of X. The only problem I encounter generally and recurrently is not js being an obstacle to find information but rather badly written anti-content.
      - d-lisp 3y ago
        Replace X with Y since X is a thing.
        nottorp 3y ago
        > I go to whatever website that has an authority on X But what do you do when the website gives you an 'experience' instead of info about X? And no, <the company formerly known as Twitter> has no right to take X for themselves. Keep using it for unknown/unspecified items.

Almondsetat 3y ago

Don't visit the website

getpokedagain 3y ago
I hope we can have a more reasoned debate than this. This topic is really important and frankly there's so much to it I hope that hearing others I can learn more. When I read some of the thread above what I am hearing is: "I don't want people to be able to run programs on my computer without asking explicitly". Which is exactly what the modern web and modern web browsers enable. If you learned computing in the 90's you were very much told not to install things you do not trust. Everyone remembers downloading some game from the internet and suddenly their OS was trashed via malware or non subtle virus. The modern web is essentially a giant way to circumvent that. Sure only your browser can get shitted up but its the same browser you do your finance in and has access to your GPU. Certainly it enables easy sharing of programs but so does something like java. Most OS's still recognize a .jar file as an executable and ask you about it before you can run. They never do that before javascript starts processing in your browser. There are several other issues here such as: - Many essential processes such as banking, medical records and education all rely upon the modern web paradigm at this point. One cannot simply access them on an e-reader or using a browser with javascript disabled. Are you saying you think that someone should be left uneducated or lack medicine if they don't like running an unsecured browser? Should those with privacy concerns just incur the cost of having one "safe" device and one they do their "interacting with the web" one? - The modern web sandbox includes very high access to sensitive things. Many people's file systems are from a cloud platform all of which malware in the browser can access for example. - The modern web can be highly performant but generally its not and requires ever increasing hardware cost simply to do things like read a book.
- takluyver 3y ago
  Ironically, that decision to run Javascript without a prompt was probably a huge step forward for the security of most users. The 'do you trust this' model of security doesn't work well in practice once you can download programs from the internet - there's too much stuff you need to or want to trust to get on with things, and even if it's not actively malicious, it may be vulnerable. Because Javascript can run in the browser without the assumption that you completely trust it, browser developers have put a load of work into restricting what it can do, even within the browser. Of course, sometimes there are holes in the sandbox - nothing is perfect - but I think it's vastly better than giving any program you decide to run complete access to your computer. (Better for the majority, that is. If you're truly paranoid and have enough time, explicitly deciding what to trust can be better. But I think that's <1% of people - certainly not including me.)

darepublic 3y ago

How is that different from native apps. I'd take the imposition of a website over the imposition to download a mobile app anytime

paulddraper 3y ago
It doesn't. But on HN everything is terrible and get off my lawn.
GTP 3y ago
That's actually a matter of taste: in many cases I prefer desktop applications instead.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 3y ago
  Do you sandbox them? I wouldn't trust random apps running on my PC
- darepublic 3y ago
  I like desktop games of course and for coding. But for form type applications just make it web