4 ms·

Studies don't show that users care about the speed of websites - they show that users care about the ease, and therefore "perceived speed", by which they can ac

Studies don't show that users care about the speed of websites - they show that users care about the ease, and therefore "perceived speed", by which they can achieve a goal. A website with a quality interactive UX that adapts to user's needs, ideally with minimal interruption, is going to be substantially more efficient for the user. This is especially true since the very nature of web requires communicating with remote servers in order to update and persist the user's state. Loading an entire webpage every time state changes is not just slower, it's also quite disruptive for the user. Javascript's power comes down to the fact it offers AJAX and a way to manipulate the DOM on the fly. In addition to avoiding full-page reloads, it has the advantage that you can present the user with meaningful UI i.e. progress indicators and what-not.

DanBC 12y ago
> A website with a quality interactive UX that adapts to user's needs, ideally with minimal interruption, is going to be substantially more efficient for the user. That is a miniscule number of websites though.
- Benjamin_Dobell 12y ago
  If that's the case, then the problem isn't JS, it's poor web development. Annoying? Absolutely! However, this is not a problem that users can expect to resolve on their end by doing something so general as disabling Javascript. I could disable images, or ignore CSS, and undoubtedly websites would load faster for me also. However, complaining to the web-page maintainer that the webpage functions poorly on my system would hardly make sense. Javascript is not the problem; I can make equally terrible UX for websites with-out it - small fonts, animated GIFs, terrible (any) audio... crap content. If users want to complain and be taken seriously then they should complain about the problem, not something orthogonal to the issue.

DanBC 12y ago

> A website with a quality interactive UX that adapts to user's needs, ideally with minimal interruption, is going to be substantially more efficient for the user. That is a miniscule number of websites though.

Benjamin_Dobell 12y ago
If that's the case, then the problem isn't JS, it's poor web development. Annoying? Absolutely! However, this is not a problem that users can expect to resolve on their end by doing something so general as disabling Javascript. I could disable images, or ignore CSS, and undoubtedly websites would load faster for me also. However, complaining to the web-page maintainer that the webpage functions poorly on my system would hardly make sense. Javascript is not the problem; I can make equally terrible UX for websites with-out it - small fonts, animated GIFs, terrible (any) audio... crap content. If users want to complain and be taken seriously then they should complain about the problem, not something orthogonal to the issue.