5 ms·

If you're saying that the only way to build a fast website is to use single-page design, you're wrong. Having reasonable amount of images and CSS, as well as ef

by romaniv 14y ago

If you're saying that the only way to build a fast website is to use single-page design, you're wrong. Having reasonable amount of images and CSS, as well as efficient server side components does way, way more for noticeable performance than being single-page. But I think the real issue at hand isn't about being single-page, it's about using single-pageness as an excuse for ignoring certain usability and architectural issues. No white flash. Just 1 click and it loads instantly. Unless you're using IE9. Also, I couldn't click any of the top links on my Galaxy S.

pbiggar 14y ago
It's not the only way, but once you optimize everything in a static app, the only place to go is one-page. > But I think the real issue at hand isn't about being single-page, it's about using single-pageness as an excuse for ignoring certain usability and architectural issues. Agreed. Funnily enough the architectural issues are easier with one page apps, IMO. You just expose a REST API, do your asset caching, and don't need any HTML caching at all! > Unless you're using IE9. Also, I couldn't click any of the top links on my Galaxy S. Thanks for the reports. I think those are orthogonal from the one-page JS app though, and are more due to building a PaaS with 2 people. We'll fix it though!
- gambler 14y ago
  Funnily enough the architectural issues are easier with one page apps, IMO. You just expose a REST API, do your asset caching, and don't need any HTML caching at all! Let's say I want to build a new search engine. How do I crawl your website without having Google-esque budget? More importantly, if all websites were built like that, how would anyone could build a new search engine? That's also architecture. How do things interact? What is possible and what is not? What kind of things would happen if technology became popular? The real issue here is not that the page is not crawlable right now. I know there ways of addressing this. The issue is that it's not semantic and that you need to do extra work (separate from normal development) for search engines.
  - pbiggar 14y ago
    With absolutely no offense intended, your search engine is very low in my priority list. I care about how my customers experience Circle. If you were to create a new search engine, and it didn't take into account one-page-apps, I'd say you've built the wrong architecture too. Finally, it's not that we don't have the time, it's that we dont have the time _right now_. Web apps suddenly became hard in the last 3 years - people expect a lot more than they used to. But our priorities must be to deliver the kind of experience that customers desire. Technology should be our servant, not our master.
    - prodigal_erik 14y ago
      Presentation does not trump content, and the spread of this attitude will destroy the web. If nobody can reference and repurpose that content in ways you never thought of, it ceases to be more useful than print or even television.
      - ricardobeat 14y ago
        CircleCI is an application, a tool, not a collection of documents. It has no use being crawled, since there isn't much content, and what you have is not for sharing. This applies to 90% of web apps.
    - gambler 14y ago
      It's not about my search engine, though. It's about any new search engine. It's about the future possibilities. I care about how my customers experience Circle. If your customers care about privacy and security and browse with JavaScript disabled by default, they will be annoyed. If they have disabilities and use a screen reader, they're likely screwed. If they get lost in your docs and decide to use "site:circleci.com" query to find the page they need, they will get nothing. If they would want to use a mini-crawler to download your docs for local usage, they will get nothing. That is user experience, and those things are objective. They either work or not. On the other hand, performance gains and development time gains of single-page apps are -- debatable. If you were to create a new search engine, and it didn't take into account one-page-apps, I'd say you've built the wrong architecture too. There is no reliable way to build a search engine that would crawl through websites created mostly in an imperative language. Even unreliable ways to do that are complicated enough that Google and Microsoft fail miserably at them.

by romaniv 14y ago

pbiggar 14y ago

It's not the only way, but once you optimize everything in a static app, the only place to go is one-page. > But I think the real issue at hand isn't about being single-page, it's about using single-pageness as an excuse for ignoring certain usability and architectural issues. Agreed. Funnily enough the architectural issues are easier with one page apps, IMO. You just expose a REST API, do your asset caching, and don't need any HTML caching at all! > Unless you're using IE9. Also, I couldn't click any of the top links on my Galaxy S. Thanks for the reports. I think those are orthogonal from the one-page JS app though, and are more due to building a PaaS with 2 people. We'll fix it though!

gambler 14y ago
Funnily enough the architectural issues are easier with one page apps, IMO. You just expose a REST API, do your asset caching, and don't need any HTML caching at all! Let's say I want to build a new search engine. How do I crawl your website without having Google-esque budget? More importantly, if all websites were built like that, how would anyone could build a new search engine? That's also architecture. How do things interact? What is possible and what is not? What kind of things would happen if technology became popular? The real issue here is not that the page is not crawlable right now. I know there ways of addressing this. The issue is that it's not semantic and that you need to do extra work (separate from normal development) for search engines.
- pbiggar 14y ago
  With absolutely no offense intended, your search engine is very low in my priority list. I care about how my customers experience Circle. If you were to create a new search engine, and it didn't take into account one-page-apps, I'd say you've built the wrong architecture too. Finally, it's not that we don't have the time, it's that we dont have the time _right now_. Web apps suddenly became hard in the last 3 years - people expect a lot more than they used to. But our priorities must be to deliver the kind of experience that customers desire. Technology should be our servant, not our master.
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    Presentation does not trump content, and the spread of this attitude will destroy the web. If nobody can reference and repurpose that content in ways you never thought of, it ceases to be more useful than print or even television.
    - ricardobeat 14y ago
      CircleCI is an application, a tool, not a collection of documents. It has no use being crawled, since there isn't much content, and what you have is not for sharing. This applies to 90% of web apps.
  - gambler 14y ago
    It's not about my search engine, though. It's about any new search engine. It's about the future possibilities. I care about how my customers experience Circle. If your customers care about privacy and security and browse with JavaScript disabled by default, they will be annoyed. If they have disabilities and use a screen reader, they're likely screwed. If they get lost in your docs and decide to use "site:circleci.com" query to find the page they need, they will get nothing. If they would want to use a mini-crawler to download your docs for local usage, they will get nothing. That is user experience, and those things are objective. They either work or not. On the other hand, performance gains and development time gains of single-page apps are -- debatable. If you were to create a new search engine, and it didn't take into account one-page-apps, I'd say you've built the wrong architecture too. There is no reliable way to build a search engine that would crawl through websites created mostly in an imperative language. Even unreliable ways to do that are complicated enough that Google and Microsoft fail miserably at them.