4 ms·

Outside of Hacker News or niche companies still supporting IE, progressive enhancement is completely dead. Even for my own projects, I don’t care anymore; ther

Outside of Hacker News or niche companies still supporting IE, progressive enhancement is completely dead. Even for my own projects, I don’t care anymore; there’s a warning to turn it on with a <noscript> tag, and the whole page is otherwise hidden. HN had the eulogy (with some kicking and screaming that it was premature) back in 2013. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6316516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6316516

jaredcwhite 2y ago
"Progressive enhancement is completely dead" is in fact something I only expect to see posted on Hacker News. rolls eyes Meanwhile, out on the open web, people build progressively enhanced solutions all the time.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Sure, and I do too, when it makes sense and is simple enough. A marketing page with one form? Why not? But a CRUD-heavy app with forms and modals and many moving parts? Forget it. It’s about as relevant as people using IE. 2 years ago, again on HN, someone asked if progressive enhancement “lost the war.” In reality, it never showed up for battle on its own merits. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779408
- hinkley 2y ago
  Not to mention anything that’s been “dead” for a dozen years tends to be resurrected either by people who know or by people reinventing a wheel. We all live on a pendulum.
- rikroots 2y ago
  Two places in particular where people need to think about progressive enhancement: + Low-powered or -specified devices don't like Javascript-heavy elements. For example, canvas elements - do people with steam-powered mobile phones really need to see that JS-heavy canvas animation? Wouldn't a static image do just as well for them? Same goes for intensely animated SVG scenes. + Apple News. JS is not a thing in AN. If you need to press a web article so it can be distributed via AN, be prepared to rip every shred of JS out of it - something that's a lot easier to do if your article has already been built with progressive enhancement in mind.
simonw 2y ago
It's only dead among people who don't care about productively building fast loading, reliable websites. (Which apparently is most web developers these days. Sigh.)

jaredcwhite 2y ago

"Progressive enhancement is completely dead" is in fact something I only expect to see posted on Hacker News. rolls eyes Meanwhile, out on the open web, people build progressively enhanced solutions all the time.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Sure, and I do too, when it makes sense and is simple enough. A marketing page with one form? Why not? But a CRUD-heavy app with forms and modals and many moving parts? Forget it. It’s about as relevant as people using IE. 2 years ago, again on HN, someone asked if progressive enhancement “lost the war.” In reality, it never showed up for battle on its own merits. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779408
hinkley 2y ago
Not to mention anything that’s been “dead” for a dozen years tends to be resurrected either by people who know or by people reinventing a wheel. We all live on a pendulum.
rikroots 2y ago
Two places in particular where people need to think about progressive enhancement: + Low-powered or -specified devices don't like Javascript-heavy elements. For example, canvas elements - do people with steam-powered mobile phones really need to see that JS-heavy canvas animation? Wouldn't a static image do just as well for them? Same goes for intensely animated SVG scenes. + Apple News. JS is not a thing in AN. If you need to press a web article so it can be distributed via AN, be prepared to rip every shred of JS out of it - something that's a lot easier to do if your article has already been built with progressive enhancement in mind.

simonw 2y ago

It's only dead among people who don't care about productively building fast loading, reliable websites. (Which apparently is most web developers these days. Sigh.)