12 ms·

The web, it's for everyone

43 points by hodgesmr 12y ago

prezjordan 12y ago
The Chrome extension example is pretty weak. I don't know why anyone would think you could get something form the Chrome Web Store using Firefox.
- sp332 12y ago
  Why can't you at least download it? You can download Firefox .xpi files from https://addons.mozilla.org https://addons.mozilla.org using Chrome.
  - McGlockenshire 12y ago
    They disabled normal local / offline installation of CRX packages a while ago due to "security" concerns. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969
- indubitably 12y ago
  Because “everyone” means people who don’t necessarily follow browser development trends.
- jashkenas 12y ago
  I disagree. Two points: 1. The vast majority of things on the Chrome Web Store are web apps, not browser extensions. 2. Should GMail really only be able to work offline in Chrome?
  - prezjordan 12y ago
    I understand that many of them are just shortcuts, but the point is still weaker than anything else posted here. As for your second point, no it shouldn't :( Seems they built this "offline app" stuff into Chrome and plan on keeping it there.
  - Siecje 12y ago
    There are specific things you can do in Chrome Apps like access the Hard Drive.
  - Afforess 12y ago
    >2. Should GMail really only be able to work offline in Chrome? Does anyone but me remember offline email clients (hello Thunderbird!)? You can take Gmail offline already.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I really enjoy nmh, with sufficient scripting and aliases.
- oscargrouch 12y ago
  The point is not being open, the point is platform lockin. Once you accept it, you will "never" be able to leave chrome because you have all of your things in chrome apps now. It was a huge effort to leave the Microsoft lockin back then, and the Web(togheter with Linux, GNU and open source), a open platform did it! It was like the 'man in the moon' back then; And now we are simply going back, and we are just repeating the same mistakes again
  - prezjordan 12y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it that way.
imanaccount247 12y ago
The web has moved so far away from its original purpose that we need something to fill the role the web was originally supposed to be for. I hate having to have a massive complex piece of software that takes up a GB of RAM and includes an entire programming language just to be able to view simple text documents that link to each other.
- hollerith 12y ago
  I agree. Browsing is important enough that there should be browsers just for browsing. What we have now are browsers that support browsing but also support access to web applications. The need to serve two masters makes the browsers we have now suboptimal for just browsing. In particular, a browser just for browsing would be able to be significantly simpler than a browser that serves two masters, and as a general rule, when we are talking about something as complicated as a browser, making a program simpler makes it more reliable and makes it easier for a human to predict what it will do and consequently makes it less frustrating to use.
  - krapp 12y ago
    Regardless of what the web once was, it now is an application environment, for which one application is documents ("browsing".) You already have what amounts to a "browser just for browsing" when you turn off javascript in the one you're using now. But a browser which only interprets html and css and not javascript is just a broken browser.
    - imanaccount247 12y ago
      That's the point. The web is completely broken for the use case of "browsing the web". We need a replacement for the web, and for web browsers, to do fill that use case again that the web used to fill.
      - krapp 12y ago
        Your use case, and your definition of "browsing" which excludes dynamic content, isn't typical though. Most people keep javascript turned on by default, and for most people, it isn't broken. Nothing has changed about HTML or browsers that prevents anyone from building a minimalistic site, or one that degrades gracefully, they just choose not to. This isn't a problem of the web, but the culture of web design, and the tendency of people to only use a few corporate sites which follow the same design paradigms.
notatoad 12y ago
I agree with the principle of this, but i disagree with including the javascript-is-disabled errors. If you browse the internet with one of the most important components of the internet disabled, you're going to find that a lot of stuff is broken, and displaying a warning that "hey, things are going to be broken here" is preferable to just displaying broken stuff.
- Siecje 12y ago
  What about if you are using a screen reader?
  - wukkuan 12y ago
    That's a valid concern, but unrelated to JavaScript being required. Making a JavaScript web application screen reader accessible is no problem.
- Smudge 12y ago
  You might be surprised at what can be accomplished with HTML and CSS alone. Most of github.com works just fine without Javascript. Much of Twitter and Facebook work too. Facebook does give a warning, but they say you should enable Javascript "for a better experience" instead of "for any experience." I agree that showing a "hey this is broken" warning is better than rendering a totally broken page, but it's still not as good as presenting at least a partially working version, perhaps minus all of the usual bells and whistles. Now, of course, this is not super-feasible if you've chosen to build most of your site using client-side code, especially if that's where most of the rendering happens. But then again, the lack of server-side rendering is the obvious downside of building your site that way.
  - micampe 12y ago
    Not everyone has the resources that Twitter and Facebook have to mantain what essentially are two version of their website. My position is that if you disable Javascript you get what you get (both you and I will be happy to know that I don't do web development anymore).
_mulder_ 12y ago
Not really sure what the point of this is. How do Google Now and GMail Offline == 'The Web'? They are specific Apps designed to work in a specific manner, they are not 'the web'. GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'. 100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn't they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite. a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that's because I don't use Opera anymore! Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary's Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.
- TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
  > GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'. But last I checked Offline Gmail does not. Which I think is the point this Tumblr is trying to make.
davegauer 12y ago
I am so torn about this. On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content. On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements. I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Smudge 12y ago
  As someone who also enjoys building rich interactions as well, I find that it's just a matter of understanding the trade-offs. Requiring Javascript support is sort of like relying heavily on the latest HTML or CSS features (a recent example: WebRTC). I have to consider what happens in browsers where the feature is unsupported or disabled, and if I'm okay with narrowing those visitors out of my userbase, then I move forward. Otherwise I make sure that something is in place for them to fall-back on. Javascript is a bit tricker than, say, the fancier CSS selectors, because I often rely on Javascript for polyfills/webshims, etc, and you can't polyfill a lack of Javascript. But when I can I still make use of that old "progressive enhancement" idea by starting with the basic HTML/CSS elements required to make a feature work, and then enhancing it with Javascript and more modern styling. It doesn't work everywhere, and certainly not in cases where most of the work is done client-side, but I still get plenty of miles out of that technique.
swartkrans 12y ago
IE and Safari have self-interest motivated reasons for not supporting webrtc and for propagating their own technology, so no, I don't agree with this. I'm not going to avoid building apps that make use of technology that companies like Apple and Microsoft don't implement, and I don't care if that this is a problem for people. These companies don't really want to support the web as a platform. They want a crippled web because it beats their ecosystem lock in.
findjashua 12y ago
You need Chrome to use Chrome extensions? Oh, the humanity! That said, it's time to call bullshit on Google's whole 'do no evil' shtick, considering how so many of their web apps only work on Chrome.
serve_yay 12y ago
"Javascript apps don't work when I turn off Javascript :( :( :( :( :( :(" If you think the things made by jerks like me aren't part of the web or whatever, then fine. You stay on your version of the web and I'll stay on mine, and never the twain shall meet. .....Until you actually need to do something useful.
- aaaaaaaaaaa1234 12y ago
  Can you provide an example of a useful web-based activity that can't be done without javascript, other than web-based games? I've seen a huge number of sites over the years stop working because they redesign to incorporate javascript; yet, when I visit them at work (with a javascript-enabled browser) their shiny new site doesn't actually have any new features. Things that don't need javascript: --Form verification (you should always be doing this on the server, and optionally in client-side javascript) --<video> tag --Popup site menus --Web-based chat --Webmail --Message board comments (unless you locked yourself into Disqus) --Nearly everything
  - micampe 12y ago
    Why did you need to create a throwaway account for this comment?
    - aaaaaaaaaaa1234 12y ago
      I don't maintain a regular account. I mostly lurk, but comment occasionally. When I do, I can't remember my previous username.
  - Siecje 12y ago
    Toggle a Menu
  - krapp 12y ago
    AJAX? Not having to render and reload an entire page every time something changes or a request is made is actually quite useful. Load balancing is one of the reasons js-based templates are so popular. Also I believe there are aspects of cross-browser compatibility related to mobile design and responsive design which depend on javascript, though I may be mostly wrong.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
The web IS for everyone - even for those who want to make proprietary apps and pages. I don't see a problem with any of these examples unless I missed the one that tax dollars paid for.

43 points by hodgesmr 12y ago

The Chrome extension example is pretty weak. I don't know why anyone would think you could get something form the Chrome Web Store using Firefox.

sp332 12y ago
Why can't you at least download it? You can download Firefox .xpi files from https://addons.mozilla.org https://addons.mozilla.org using Chrome.
- McGlockenshire 12y ago
  They disabled normal local / offline installation of CRX packages a while ago due to "security" concerns. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969 https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/2811969
indubitably 12y ago
Because “everyone” means people who don’t necessarily follow browser development trends.
jashkenas 12y ago
I disagree. Two points: 1. The vast majority of things on the Chrome Web Store are web apps, not browser extensions. 2. Should GMail really only be able to work offline in Chrome?
- prezjordan 12y ago
  I understand that many of them are just shortcuts, but the point is still weaker than anything else posted here. As for your second point, no it shouldn't :( Seems they built this "offline app" stuff into Chrome and plan on keeping it there.
- Siecje 12y ago
  There are specific things you can do in Chrome Apps like access the Hard Drive.
- Afforess 12y ago
  >2. Should GMail really only be able to work offline in Chrome? Does anyone but me remember offline email clients (hello Thunderbird!)? You can take Gmail offline already.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    I really enjoy nmh, with sufficient scripting and aliases.
oscargrouch 12y ago
The point is not being open, the point is platform lockin. Once you accept it, you will "never" be able to leave chrome because you have all of your things in chrome apps now. It was a huge effort to leave the Microsoft lockin back then, and the Web(togheter with Linux, GNU and open source), a open platform did it! It was like the 'man in the moon' back then; And now we are simply going back, and we are just repeating the same mistakes again
- prezjordan 12y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out - I hadn't thought of it that way.

imanaccount247 12y ago

The web has moved so far away from its original purpose that we need something to fill the role the web was originally supposed to be for. I hate having to have a massive complex piece of software that takes up a GB of RAM and includes an entire programming language just to be able to view simple text documents that link to each other.

hollerith 12y ago
I agree. Browsing is important enough that there should be browsers just for browsing. What we have now are browsers that support browsing but also support access to web applications. The need to serve two masters makes the browsers we have now suboptimal for just browsing. In particular, a browser just for browsing would be able to be significantly simpler than a browser that serves two masters, and as a general rule, when we are talking about something as complicated as a browser, making a program simpler makes it more reliable and makes it easier for a human to predict what it will do and consequently makes it less frustrating to use.
- krapp 12y ago
  Regardless of what the web once was, it now is an application environment, for which one application is documents ("browsing".) You already have what amounts to a "browser just for browsing" when you turn off javascript in the one you're using now. But a browser which only interprets html and css and not javascript is just a broken browser.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    That's the point. The web is completely broken for the use case of "browsing the web". We need a replacement for the web, and for web browsers, to do fill that use case again that the web used to fill.
    - krapp 12y ago
      Your use case, and your definition of "browsing" which excludes dynamic content, isn't typical though. Most people keep javascript turned on by default, and for most people, it isn't broken. Nothing has changed about HTML or browsers that prevents anyone from building a minimalistic site, or one that degrades gracefully, they just choose not to. This isn't a problem of the web, but the culture of web design, and the tendency of people to only use a few corporate sites which follow the same design paradigms.

notatoad 12y ago

I agree with the principle of this, but i disagree with including the javascript-is-disabled errors. If you browse the internet with one of the most important components of the internet disabled, you're going to find that a lot of stuff is broken, and displaying a warning that "hey, things are going to be broken here" is preferable to just displaying broken stuff.

Siecje 12y ago
What about if you are using a screen reader?
- wukkuan 12y ago
  That's a valid concern, but unrelated to JavaScript being required. Making a JavaScript web application screen reader accessible is no problem.
Smudge 12y ago
You might be surprised at what can be accomplished with HTML and CSS alone. Most of github.com works just fine without Javascript. Much of Twitter and Facebook work too. Facebook does give a warning, but they say you should enable Javascript "for a better experience" instead of "for any experience." I agree that showing a "hey this is broken" warning is better than rendering a totally broken page, but it's still not as good as presenting at least a partially working version, perhaps minus all of the usual bells and whistles. Now, of course, this is not super-feasible if you've chosen to build most of your site using client-side code, especially if that's where most of the rendering happens. But then again, the lack of server-side rendering is the obvious downside of building your site that way.
- micampe 12y ago
  Not everyone has the resources that Twitter and Facebook have to mantain what essentially are two version of their website. My position is that if you disable Javascript you get what you get (both you and I will be happy to know that I don't do web development anymore).

_mulder_ 12y ago

Not really sure what the point of this is. How do Google Now and GMail Offline == 'The Web'? They are specific Apps designed to work in a specific manner, they are not 'the web'. GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'. 100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn't they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite. a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that's because I don't use Opera anymore! Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary's Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.

TarpitCarnivore 12y ago
> GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'. But last I checked Offline Gmail does not. Which I think is the point this Tumblr is trying to make.

davegauer 12y ago

I am so torn about this. On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content. On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements. I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Smudge 12y ago
As someone who also enjoys building rich interactions as well, I find that it's just a matter of understanding the trade-offs. Requiring Javascript support is sort of like relying heavily on the latest HTML or CSS features (a recent example: WebRTC). I have to consider what happens in browsers where the feature is unsupported or disabled, and if I'm okay with narrowing those visitors out of my userbase, then I move forward. Otherwise I make sure that something is in place for them to fall-back on. Javascript is a bit tricker than, say, the fancier CSS selectors, because I often rely on Javascript for polyfills/webshims, etc, and you can't polyfill a lack of Javascript. But when I can I still make use of that old "progressive enhancement" idea by starting with the basic HTML/CSS elements required to make a feature work, and then enhancing it with Javascript and more modern styling. It doesn't work everywhere, and certainly not in cases where most of the work is done client-side, but I still get plenty of miles out of that technique.

swartkrans 12y ago

IE and Safari have self-interest motivated reasons for not supporting webrtc and for propagating their own technology, so no, I don't agree with this. I'm not going to avoid building apps that make use of technology that companies like Apple and Microsoft don't implement, and I don't care if that this is a problem for people. These companies don't really want to support the web as a platform. They want a crippled web because it beats their ecosystem lock in.

findjashua 12y ago

You need Chrome to use Chrome extensions? Oh, the humanity! That said, it's time to call bullshit on Google's whole 'do no evil' shtick, considering how so many of their web apps only work on Chrome.

serve_yay 12y ago

"Javascript apps don't work when I turn off Javascript :( :( :( :( :( :(" If you think the things made by jerks like me aren't part of the web or whatever, then fine. You stay on your version of the web and I'll stay on mine, and never the twain shall meet. .....Until you actually need to do something useful.

aaaaaaaaaaa1234 12y ago
Can you provide an example of a useful web-based activity that can't be done without javascript, other than web-based games? I've seen a huge number of sites over the years stop working because they redesign to incorporate javascript; yet, when I visit them at work (with a javascript-enabled browser) their shiny new site doesn't actually have any new features. Things that don't need javascript: --Form verification (you should always be doing this on the server, and optionally in client-side javascript) --<video> tag --Popup site menus --Web-based chat --Webmail --Message board comments (unless you locked yourself into Disqus) --Nearly everything
- micampe 12y ago
  Why did you need to create a throwaway account for this comment?
  - aaaaaaaaaaa1234 12y ago
    I don't maintain a regular account. I mostly lurk, but comment occasionally. When I do, I can't remember my previous username.
- Siecje 12y ago
  Toggle a Menu
- krapp 12y ago
  AJAX? Not having to render and reload an entire page every time something changes or a request is made is actually quite useful. Load balancing is one of the reasons js-based templates are so popular. Also I believe there are aspects of cross-browser compatibility related to mobile design and responsive design which depend on javascript, though I may be mostly wrong.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

The web IS for everyone - even for those who want to make proprietary apps and pages. I don't see a problem with any of these examples unless I missed the one that tax dollars paid for.