3 ms·

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 1

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.
    - NoGravitas 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. And this is why you fail. When you use components built into the browser, everyone gets to benefit from the same years of experience and testing, so that edge cases you have never thought about are handled correctly. Websites that re-implement text boxes, history, scrolling, so many things, never get every detail right. They always break on cases the built-in equivalent would handle correctly. Sometimes weird edge-cases, but pretty often completely normal cases that don't appear on the developer's development machine.
      - 2y ago
- ryandrake 2y ago
  As a user, I want common UI controls to look and behave the same way across all web sites. Ideally, across all applications on my OS, but that's also a lost cause. POLA[1]. I can accept if the developer wants to somehow extend an existing control to support something new, but it's so irritating when they just re-implement their own thing entirely because they think their ideas are better than the browser's. Multiply that mentality by every site out there, and you have the web as it is today: Everyone's site looks and feels inconsistent with every other site. And everyone ships a different 500 lines of code, each with different bugs, just to implement a drop-down box. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...
  - wvenable 2y ago
    This is one of these things that sounds perfectly logical -- you want all UI components to look and behave the same across all applications and all websites -- but that is more theoretical than practical. If you built an app that used just what the browser gives you and nothing more, you're leaving so much functionality on the floor. Having more expressive power often makes things simpler -- using more complex UI controls has allowed me to eliminate whole pages from my application. Users are happier and more productive. Browser UI implementations can't do one thing that is vital: compete.
    - CRConrad 2y ago
      > If you built an app that used just what the browser gives you and nothing more, you're leaving so much functionality on the floor. Yeah, please do. Because 99.72% of that "functionality" is used to implement crappy ugly bullshit.
  - indymike 2y ago
    > As a user, I want common UI controls to look and behave the same way across all web sites. That ship has sailed. (and I wish it had not) > Everyone's site looks and feels inconsistent with every other site. Somehow, this model won. Most people muddle through and figure it all out...
  - 2y ago

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.
  - NoGravitas 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. And this is why you fail. When you use components built into the browser, everyone gets to benefit from the same years of experience and testing, so that edge cases you have never thought about are handled correctly. Websites that re-implement text boxes, history, scrolling, so many things, never get every detail right. They always break on cases the built-in equivalent would handle correctly. Sometimes weird edge-cases, but pretty often completely normal cases that don't appear on the developer's development machine.
    - 2y ago
ryandrake 2y ago
As a user, I want common UI controls to look and behave the same way across all web sites. Ideally, across all applications on my OS, but that's also a lost cause. POLA[1]. I can accept if the developer wants to somehow extend an existing control to support something new, but it's so irritating when they just re-implement their own thing entirely because they think their ideas are better than the browser's. Multiply that mentality by every site out there, and you have the web as it is today: Everyone's site looks and feels inconsistent with every other site. And everyone ships a different 500 lines of code, each with different bugs, just to implement a drop-down box. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishmen...
- wvenable 2y ago
  This is one of these things that sounds perfectly logical -- you want all UI components to look and behave the same across all applications and all websites -- but that is more theoretical than practical. If you built an app that used just what the browser gives you and nothing more, you're leaving so much functionality on the floor. Having more expressive power often makes things simpler -- using more complex UI controls has allowed me to eliminate whole pages from my application. Users are happier and more productive. Browser UI implementations can't do one thing that is vital: compete.
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > If you built an app that used just what the browser gives you and nothing more, you're leaving so much functionality on the floor. Yeah, please do. Because 99.72% of that "functionality" is used to implement crappy ugly bullshit.
- indymike 2y ago
  > As a user, I want common UI controls to look and behave the same way across all web sites. That ship has sailed. (and I wish it had not) > Everyone's site looks and feels inconsistent with every other site. Somehow, this model won. Most people muddle through and figure it all out...
- 2y ago