Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?

#61

Post by jessaustin » Thu, May 14, 2015, 11:12 PM UTC

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #55

wmil wrote: post #45

That's not the way to help people with low bandwith or very high latency connections. They need more javascript, not less. SPA designs can actually make CRUD apps significantly more useable on slow or unreliable connections.

[Citation needed] I've run across far too many "mobile-friendly" websites that start by loading many MBs of JS libraries. And just flat-out fail to load if any of said libraries fail to load.

The idea would be that for a web app, posting or fetching little bits of JSON every time an action is taken would be less intense than getting a whole page every time. Of course, as you have experienced, that's not helpful if the initial page load is too heavy. Also it's not too helpful for sites that have content to read, rather than actions to take.

ps. "citation needed" is kind of obnoxious when it's something you can think through for yourself.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?

#62

Post by lmm » Fri, May 15, 2015, 11:10 AM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #39

lmm wrote: post #3

Because the business case isn't there, in terms of the cost/benefit. It's a lot of work (maybe not initially, but maintaining that functionality on an ongoing basis slows development), to support a tiny number of users, who you can't make any money advertising to (if you're ad-supported) and who are probably not the kind of users who buy much (if you sell directly).

The sad bit about this attitude is that some of us consider web design/development to be a craft, rather than purely an exercise in profit-maximisation. We should be creating the very best work that we can, not just aiming for what's good enough, then stopping. That's just an opinion; I realise it's unpopular with some.

Overengineering is the biggest problem with the craft today. True craftsmanship is about giving the customer something appropriate to their needs, not making a magnum opus every time.

Re: Ask HN: Why don't websites have 'text only' backup versions?

#63

Post by wmil » Fri, May 15, 2015, 5:56 PM UTC

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #55

wmil wrote: post #45

That's not the way to help people with low bandwith or very high latency connections. They need more javascript, not less. SPA designs can actually make CRUD apps significantly more useable on slow or unreliable connections.

[Citation needed] I've run across far too many "mobile-friendly" websites that start by loading many MBs of JS libraries. And just flat-out fail to load if any of said libraries fail to load.

I'm talking about bad connections, not necessarily mobile. This applies especially to situations that companies like G-Advetures face. In South America they have to deal with perfectly fine desktops, but very high latency internet connections. Submitting a form can take 20 minutes or more.

A text only version like the one described would be far worse than a JS heavy one. JS free forms are naturally synchronous. So each edit would kill the ui for a full refresh cycle.

On the other hand a SPA type page can send data in the background white you're doing other work in the app.

Sure there are crappy mobile friendly sites, but that doesn't invalidate the idea.

On a side note I'm not really sold on the whole CDN idea, it just looks like another HTTP request and another point of failure. Concatenate / uglify seems like the better solution.