Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You might not need JavaScript

youmightnotneedjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 254 posts

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#81

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #58

So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress. Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JS…

You should surely realize that requiring SCSS and requiring JS are two very different concerns.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#82

Post by pmlnr »

notgood wrote: post #65

You might nod near internet, heck, you many not need staying alive, but here we are. Seriously, after some minimum complexity the ability to create functions and loops its extremely important. As in you don't need a spoon and a knife to feed yourself, but it sure fucking helps.

I remember a time when the coolest thing you could do with JS was mouse trailing bouncy balls. Since then, a lot changed; one of these is that people see JS as salvation from a special hell that doesn't even exist.

That giant ball JS that is included in most sites is absolute nonsense and is not needed in 99% of the cases. We include complete libraries where is should only be a portion.

I'm aware that this is changing, by "compiled" JS - putting together only the required elements - but usually those still have massive overheads.

In my opinion, you should use the tools for what they are the best for. Provide a static, readable HTML first from a backend code - that will run on anything, anywhere; it's accessible, and you've served the main purpose: serving content^1. If you need, add the styling and the animation with CSS. Only after that add the JS layer, which, in my opinion, should mostly be used for data exchange and change triggering.

^1 There are exceptions, there always are; application within the browser, where the main purpose differs from the content delivery. In certain numbers, such as domains, these are the minority; in actual use, it's a different story.

( Imagine a world where the data exchange is not tied together with JS and that we could but other UIs in front of the backends of webapps.. )

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#83

Post by Retr0spectrum »

vardump wrote: post #57
Semiapies wrote: post #54

You might not, but you probably do. The validation examples and input types are a case in point. Even on browsers where they work, the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled.

> the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled It's not clear to me whether that's a problem. Isn't consistent UI a good thing? Isn't it faster to fill the forms correctly if alerts always appear in the same way?

Not really. The errors on Firefox at least, just say "Please match the requested format", which doesn't tell the user where they went wrong for potentially complex requirements.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#84

Post by eivarv »

Semiapies wrote: post #79
vardump wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled It's not clear to me whether that's a problem. Isn't consistent UI a good thing? Isn't it faster to fill the forms correctly if alerts always appear in the same way?

How is it consistent UI when it doesn't match your design and looks and works very different in every browser?

It's consistent with the platform, i.e. the alerts are native

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#85

Post by pmlnr »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #58

So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress. Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JS…

Compile time requirements and runtime requirements are different things.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#86

Post by pmlnr »

pluma wrote: post #42
mozumder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea why people use Chrome. Chrome/Google has terrible/no support of many browser layout & interaction features, such as CSS Regions & scroll snap points. Also, Safari is just a much better browser than Chrome. We need to make sure people stop using Chrome and move to the default browser in their environment - Safari & Edge. If you support the default browser, then you're going to be fine.

> default browser Hi, I'm Linux.

Yay for Midori, Konqueror, Epiphany, Dillo, lynx, and all the things a regular dev never have to encounter with :)

( By the way lynx is perfect to pierce through a lot of paywalls. )

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#87

Post by Retr0spectrum »

fenomas wrote: post #35
jwblackwell wrote: post #20

Does anyone else feel that a site called "You Might Not Need Javascript", probably shouldn't use Javascript?

Do any of the examples use Javascript? Or are you saying the site shouldn't use JS for syntax highlighting or whatever, even though that's not the sort of thing it claims JS isn't needed for?

If you look at the source, there are plany of JS files being loaded. Mostly from codepen, but also from the site itself.

I don't see any features of this site which should require javascript, so they should probably "practise what they preach".

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#88

Post by Retr0spectrum »

bshimmin wrote: post #17

There is some useful stuff to learn from here, undeniably, but many of these are a bit useless when you compare them with what you would actually typically need on a real site. Yes, the "image slider" is vaguely functional, but really most of the time you will want a lot more control than just the CSS animations allow; similarly, yes, the form validation is a starting point, but normally you would want to customise t…

Image sliders are considered bad UX to begin with, and the lack of user control makes them even worse IMHO.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#89

Post by BinaryIdiot »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #81
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #58

So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress. Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JS…

You should surely realize that requiring SCSS and requiring JS are two very different concerns.

Of course they're different but the article mentions JavaScript as a dependency. SCSS would also be a dependency it just comes into the stack at a different place but it's there nonetheless.

Regardless my other points still stand.

Re: You might not need JavaScript

#90

Post by martin-adams »

vardump wrote: post #57
Semiapies wrote: post #54

You might not, but you probably do. The validation examples and input types are a case in point. Even on browsers where they work, the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled.

> the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled It's not clear to me whether that's a problem. Isn't consistent UI a good thing? Isn't it faster to fill the forms correctly if alerts always appear in the same way?

Consistency is a good thing, provided that the thing you are being consistent with is good in the first place.
Post reply on HN