4 ms·

Couldn't disagree more. Browser features can be much better at handling edge cases: disability, localisation, unusual devices, different input methods, weird sc

by Latty 2y ago

Couldn't disagree more. Browser features can be much better at handling edge cases: disability, localisation, unusual devices, different input methods, weird screen sizes, etc... rather than hoping every developer does it right, building that in is more efficient and consistent. The common cases should be handled really well by browsers.

wvenable 2y ago
I couldn't disagree more; it might be good for disability but for localization, unusual devices, different input methods, weird screen sizes I have never seen that well executed by browsers. I almost always prefer a more full-featured alternative from a standard framework than whatever is lowest-common-denominator feature in a browser -- which also, depending on the browser, may or may not work the same or may or may not even exist. The browser should provide low-level capabilities and let developers build the high-level functionality from it. This article ultimately supports this by showing us exactly how half-baked this particular browser feature happens to be.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Browser functionality is typically (handwaving on exact numbers here) better than the worst 80% of sites, on par with the next 10%, and not as good as the top 10%. If you're putting in the effort to build a site in the top 10%, sure, you might not want to be "held back" by the browser. But the vast majority of sites would do better by using what's built into the browser. And I would argue that the value the user receives from that top 10% of sites is not commensurate with the pain the user receives from the sites that think they're in the top 10% but aren't.
  - wvenable 2y ago
    I don't know, what browser functionality are we talking about? Even this form validation has to be implemented; I don't think I've ever even seen it in the wild. What percentage of websites are rolling their own functionality instead of using any one of the various library and framework that do this better? There is no way that every single browser is going to implement some high-level feature in a satisfactory and future-proof. It's the wrong place to do it. Almost every attempt has been at least a partial failure. We might get something maybe a decade after it's in common use and then only the most basic version of that. And we get browser bloat for our troubles too. I don't use the standard <select> controls in apps anymore because the build-in version is too simplistic. Don't even get me started on file uploads. Is everyone just supposed to be held-back by the minimum a browser can do everywhere? Why waste browser developers time building things that no one really wants to use.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      > There is no way that every single browser is going to implement some high-level feature in a satisfactory and future-proof. It's the wrong place to do it. There are far more websites than web browsers, and the turnover at the typical web agency is very high. There is no way that every single web dev is going to implement form validation in an accessible, secure, and his-webdev-replacement-proof way across all browsers and devices.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      Form validation, form elements, search... I've seen far too many sites try to reinvent a browser textarea or edit box, and fail at very basic things because they didn't handle anything they didn't personally think of. (Some common examples: some of the keyboard controls, or correct handling of scrolling when having enough text in the box to scroll, or the interaction between textarea scrolling and page scrolling...) "satisfactory" is exactly what browsers tend to provide, with a side order of "no surprises". Designers reinvent browser functionality on a theory of "I don't want satisfactory, I want delightful and unique", and sometimes they succeed, but often they fail. As a user, I very rarely want "unique" when it comes to design. You don't have to be held back by browsers, and you may well be able to do better, but many people who think they can do better end up doing worse.
      - wvenable 2y ago
        I don't see what difference it makes whether you use some component built into the browser or some component built on top of the browser. This article already starts out with how many ways you can screw up this built in browser feature. I bet you didn't even notice that the article examples were slightly broken. The "fix" shows the error when you press submit but doesn't highlight the field in red like if you backspaced it to empty. This is something my validation code does automatically and correctly.
- everdimension 2y ago
  > This article ultimately supports this by showing us exactly how half-baked this particular browser feature happens to be. In a way, yes. I do think there's a lot to improve from the browsers' side. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "half baked" solution is also not quite as bad as "no solution" and 1) it can be improved, 2) it really can be used today if you know "how to cook it right"
  - wvenable 2y ago
    You say "no solution" like form validation isn't one of the most common things that all web forms do today. Solutions exist. What I'm trying to say is instead of browser building adding high-level functionality like this they should simple continue to provide better ways for us to do it ourselves. If you code for Windows or Mac OS, you get standard controls, and they do come with a lot of functionality, but ultimately it's still just building blocks for you to build your own functionality. That's what browsers should provide -- low level building blocks.

by Latty 2y ago

wvenable 2y ago

I couldn't disagree more; it might be good for disability but for localization, unusual devices, different input methods, weird screen sizes I have never seen that well executed by browsers. I almost always prefer a more full-featured alternative from a standard framework than whatever is lowest-common-denominator feature in a browser -- which also, depending on the browser, may or may not work the same or may or may not even exist. The browser should provide low-level capabilities and let developers build the high-level functionality from it. This article ultimately supports this by showing us exactly how half-baked this particular browser feature happens to be.

JoshTriplett 2y ago
Browser functionality is typically (handwaving on exact numbers here) better than the worst 80% of sites, on par with the next 10%, and not as good as the top 10%. If you're putting in the effort to build a site in the top 10%, sure, you might not want to be "held back" by the browser. But the vast majority of sites would do better by using what's built into the browser. And I would argue that the value the user receives from that top 10% of sites is not commensurate with the pain the user receives from the sites that think they're in the top 10% but aren't.
- wvenable 2y ago
  I don't know, what browser functionality are we talking about? Even this form validation has to be implemented; I don't think I've ever even seen it in the wild. What percentage of websites are rolling their own functionality instead of using any one of the various library and framework that do this better? There is no way that every single browser is going to implement some high-level feature in a satisfactory and future-proof. It's the wrong place to do it. Almost every attempt has been at least a partial failure. We might get something maybe a decade after it's in common use and then only the most basic version of that. And we get browser bloat for our troubles too. I don't use the standard <select> controls in apps anymore because the build-in version is too simplistic. Don't even get me started on file uploads. Is everyone just supposed to be held-back by the minimum a browser can do everywhere? Why waste browser developers time building things that no one really wants to use.
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    > There is no way that every single browser is going to implement some high-level feature in a satisfactory and future-proof. It's the wrong place to do it. There are far more websites than web browsers, and the turnover at the typical web agency is very high. There is no way that every single web dev is going to implement form validation in an accessible, secure, and his-webdev-replacement-proof way across all browsers and devices.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Form validation, form elements, search... I've seen far too many sites try to reinvent a browser textarea or edit box, and fail at very basic things because they didn't handle anything they didn't personally think of. (Some common examples: some of the keyboard controls, or correct handling of scrolling when having enough text in the box to scroll, or the interaction between textarea scrolling and page scrolling...) "satisfactory" is exactly what browsers tend to provide, with a side order of "no surprises". Designers reinvent browser functionality on a theory of "I don't want satisfactory, I want delightful and unique", and sometimes they succeed, but often they fail. As a user, I very rarely want "unique" when it comes to design. You don't have to be held back by browsers, and you may well be able to do better, but many people who think they can do better end up doing worse.
    - wvenable 2y ago
      I don't see what difference it makes whether you use some component built into the browser or some component built on top of the browser. This article already starts out with how many ways you can screw up this built in browser feature. I bet you didn't even notice that the article examples were slightly broken. The "fix" shows the error when you press submit but doesn't highlight the field in red like if you backspaced it to empty. This is something my validation code does automatically and correctly.
everdimension 2y ago
> This article ultimately supports this by showing us exactly how half-baked this particular browser feature happens to be. In a way, yes. I do think there's a lot to improve from the browsers' side. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "half baked" solution is also not quite as bad as "no solution" and 1) it can be improved, 2) it really can be used today if you know "how to cook it right"
- wvenable 2y ago
  You say "no solution" like form validation isn't one of the most common things that all web forms do today. Solutions exist. What I'm trying to say is instead of browser building adding high-level functionality like this they should simple continue to provide better ways for us to do it ourselves. If you code for Windows or Mac OS, you get standard controls, and they do come with a lot of functionality, but ultimately it's still just building blocks for you to build your own functionality. That's what browsers should provide -- low level building blocks.