4 ms·

I didn't say it was typical, what does that have to do with anything. It seems like you are trying very hard to avoid reading my words and instead read what yo

I didn't say it was typical, what does that have to do with anything. It seems like you are trying very hard to avoid reading my words and instead read what you wish I said. Yes, it is a problem with the web. The culture of web design is part of the web. This is why we need a replacement for the use case that the web was originally designed for but no longer fills.

krapp 12y ago
No, I think you're misunderstanding my intent. I'm just saying basic html and hyperlinking still works perfectly fine, and most people read the web as hypertext in almost exactly the same way they always have. The original use case still exists and it still works.
- hollerith 12y ago
  It does not work as well as it used to, and more to the point, it does not work as well as it would if it did not have to do double duty as an application-delivery platform. On a very long web page, do you ever hold down the mouse button on the slider in the scroll bar so that you can scroll up and down rapidly? If you do that on the web page on which these words appear, it will (probably) work smoothly and well, but on certain Javascript-heavy pages, it is very jerky. The whole page blinks rapidly. It is tedious and difficult to see the text while the page is moving up or down. That is just one of many examples where a particular functionality useful to people who read and who "browse" (which might be defined as deciding what to read next among many, many alternatives) does not work as well on the web of 2014 as it did in the past because of the need for the web of 2014 to support ever more complicated or sophisticated web applications. (The many examples include tasks that are not strictly part of reading -- tasks like making a copy of part of a web page or making a copy of the page's URL in preparation for emailing the URL.) Publishing static documents and reading and browsing static documents over the internet is an important enough function in our society that we should feel sad that it does not work as smoothly and as quickly as it could. The next Einstein and the next Charles Darwin will use the web to learn and to share their discoveries. What the next Einstein and the next Darwin need the most from the web is the ability to browse static web pages quickly and reliably without their having to devote a lot of their attention to the user interface or to getting a particular page to work with their browser.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  No it doesn't. I have to have a massive complex piece of software that includes and entire programming language and uses a GB of memory to read basic hypertext now. 90% of the sites I need to enable javascript for are just a blog post. Nothing but text and some images, but completely reliant on javascript. A simple browser can not view 99% of the web now. We need a replacement for what the web used to be, because that had value.

krapp 12y ago

No, I think you're misunderstanding my intent. I'm just saying basic html and hyperlinking still works perfectly fine, and most people read the web as hypertext in almost exactly the same way they always have. The original use case still exists and it still works.

hollerith 12y ago
It does not work as well as it used to, and more to the point, it does not work as well as it would if it did not have to do double duty as an application-delivery platform. On a very long web page, do you ever hold down the mouse button on the slider in the scroll bar so that you can scroll up and down rapidly? If you do that on the web page on which these words appear, it will (probably) work smoothly and well, but on certain Javascript-heavy pages, it is very jerky. The whole page blinks rapidly. It is tedious and difficult to see the text while the page is moving up or down. That is just one of many examples where a particular functionality useful to people who read and who "browse" (which might be defined as deciding what to read next among many, many alternatives) does not work as well on the web of 2014 as it did in the past because of the need for the web of 2014 to support ever more complicated or sophisticated web applications. (The many examples include tasks that are not strictly part of reading -- tasks like making a copy of part of a web page or making a copy of the page's URL in preparation for emailing the URL.) Publishing static documents and reading and browsing static documents over the internet is an important enough function in our society that we should feel sad that it does not work as smoothly and as quickly as it could. The next Einstein and the next Charles Darwin will use the web to learn and to share their discoveries. What the next Einstein and the next Darwin need the most from the web is the ability to browse static web pages quickly and reliably without their having to devote a lot of their attention to the user interface or to getting a particular page to work with their browser.
imanaccount247 12y ago
No it doesn't. I have to have a massive complex piece of software that includes and entire programming language and uses a GB of memory to read basic hypertext now. 90% of the sites I need to enable javascript for are just a blog post. Nothing but text and some images, but completely reliant on javascript. A simple browser can not view 99% of the web now. We need a replacement for what the web used to be, because that had value.