4 ms·

That's what this type of SPA architecture leads to unfortunately. Routers should immediately display the navigated to route with place holder content / skeleton

That's what this type of SPA architecture leads to unfortunately. Routers should immediately display the navigated to route with place holder content / skeletons, but instead all the frameworks basically wait for all the data to load before transitioning. You can technically stream the data in but even a single awaited promise will block the navigation until it succeeds. And it's not an issue that shows up in dev because typically the data loading is instant.

cyberax 11mo ago
Nope. Skeletons are the worst. Down with the necromancy! They try to create a _perception_ of a quick answer while adding overhead and distracting people.
- eviks 11mo ago
  It's not a perception if partial load shows some information faster than waiting for the full load
- samdoesnothing 11mo ago
  It far and away beats the alternative which is clicking on a link and nothing happening. Feedback should be within a frame or two of latency, not seconds...
  - kid64 11mo ago
    That's not the only alternative, there are a range of options between those extremes.
  - halapro 11mo ago
    If you let the browser change page, then you do have feedback. Super native.
- bastawhiz 11mo ago
  Skeletons are a loading state. Get rid of skeletons and you either have unresponsiveness or flashes of nothingness
  - pier25 11mo ago
    Either you wait to get all the data to display the new UI, you show spinners, or you show skeletons. Personally I prefer to wait than having multiple flashes of content but I do agree no approach is perfect.
  - themafia 11mo ago
    The flashes signify actual changes. It's a secondary signal to resume paying attention to the page. What I truly hate are animated skeleton boxes or element level spinners. Why are you trying to hold my attention on something that's not even loaded yet? We all understand the UI paradigm and implicitly understand network delay, you don't need "comfort animations" to keep me happy. I'd rather use the time to look at any of the other tabs or applications across my screens. Then the flash of content actually means something.
    - shooly 11mo ago
      The point of skeleton loaders is to prevent the page from jumping around furiously, which would force the user to re-parse the layout (possibly) multiple times.
      - themafia 11mo ago
        In my experience it's just amateur UI design that causes this. Your display areas shouldn't change size unless the browser changes size. There should be nothing that is "content fitted." That's a historical mistake of early HTML but it's something easily overcome. You really do have to get the HTML+CSS to work like a desktop app before you layout your SPA. Worse still, applications like microsoft outlook on the web, use the skeleton boxes with comfort animations. What they don't do is pre layout their icons. And different icons will appear in different contexts. I often get the case where I aim for one icon, something will load in, create a new icon, and push my intended target out of the click. Skeleton loaders are a bad kludge over an initially ignored problem.

cyberax 11mo ago

Nope. Skeletons are the worst. Down with the necromancy! They try to create a _perception_ of a quick answer while adding overhead and distracting people.

eviks 11mo ago
It's not a perception if partial load shows some information faster than waiting for the full load
samdoesnothing 11mo ago
It far and away beats the alternative which is clicking on a link and nothing happening. Feedback should be within a frame or two of latency, not seconds...
- kid64 11mo ago
  That's not the only alternative, there are a range of options between those extremes.
- halapro 11mo ago
  If you let the browser change page, then you do have feedback. Super native.
bastawhiz 11mo ago
Skeletons are a loading state. Get rid of skeletons and you either have unresponsiveness or flashes of nothingness
- pier25 11mo ago
  Either you wait to get all the data to display the new UI, you show spinners, or you show skeletons. Personally I prefer to wait than having multiple flashes of content but I do agree no approach is perfect.
- themafia 11mo ago
  The flashes signify actual changes. It's a secondary signal to resume paying attention to the page. What I truly hate are animated skeleton boxes or element level spinners. Why are you trying to hold my attention on something that's not even loaded yet? We all understand the UI paradigm and implicitly understand network delay, you don't need "comfort animations" to keep me happy. I'd rather use the time to look at any of the other tabs or applications across my screens. Then the flash of content actually means something.
  - shooly 11mo ago
    The point of skeleton loaders is to prevent the page from jumping around furiously, which would force the user to re-parse the layout (possibly) multiple times.
    - themafia 11mo ago
      In my experience it's just amateur UI design that causes this. Your display areas shouldn't change size unless the browser changes size. There should be nothing that is "content fitted." That's a historical mistake of early HTML but it's something easily overcome. You really do have to get the HTML+CSS to work like a desktop app before you layout your SPA. Worse still, applications like microsoft outlook on the web, use the skeleton boxes with comfort animations. What they don't do is pre layout their icons. And different icons will appear in different contexts. I often get the case where I aim for one icon, something will load in, create a new icon, and push my intended target out of the click. Skeleton loaders are a bad kludge over an initially ignored problem.