3 ms·
"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
by 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 agoSure, 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 agoNot 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 agoTwo 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.