61–70 of 180 posts
http://lite.cnn.io/en https://text.npr.org/ Every site should have a plain html option. Or create their html so that it works fine without js or cnn.
Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. At some point (maybe after the popularity of Google Maps?) nobody wanted progressive enhancement and it was totally cool to just ignore users who had JS turned off. It made web app development so much easier, but probably less user friendly. It feels li…
I remember when we used the term "Graceful Degradation". It really isn't that hard to design a functional HTML site and then layer Javascript and AJAX over top of it to enhance the experience. There are very few sites that actually need to be using Frameworks like Angular and React. Sometimes I wonder if most developers would even be able to design a functional site using only HTML. It seems like most don't know the…
One might debate if a page really needs hundreds of kb of js to function, but then again, this is not much different than the classical progressive enhancement site with jquery etc. layered on and reacts server rendering can make to page easily available and working when js is disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
English obviously. It is quite far fetched, but I'm just tired of seeing countless hours wasted because the numbers aren't localized properly or RTL breaks layout. It's superfluous, people should have their native tongue and should learn English as means of international communication. Also imagine encoding problems which are also great PITA going away with ascii-only technologies.
With the way the population is going we’re more likely to use mandarin or Hindi as an international language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean about dropping i18n? How can we drop that, force everyone to speak Esperanto?
English obviously. It is quite far fetched, but I'm just tired of seeing countless hours wasted because the numbers aren't localized properly or RTL breaks layout. It's superfluous, people should have their native tongue and should learn English as means of international communication. Also imagine encoding problems which are also great PITA going away with ascii-only technologies.
In other words, remove the need for i18n before removing i18n.
As much as I'd love for the majority of JS to go away, there is no denying the usefulness of AJAX in web forms. Doing page submit is not a better experience for the user or the developer. That's basically the only piece that I can't see going without.
AJAX for all form submissions
Service Worker for caching
Turbolinks[0] for page navigation
Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. At some point (maybe after the popularity of Google Maps?) nobody wanted progressive enhancement and it was totally cool to just ignore users who had JS turned off. It made web app development so much easier, but probably less user friendly. It feels li…
> Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. I still do that on my case, a good 95% of the features I develop work without Javascript. One additional benefit is that if your JS crash for any reason, most of the things are still working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think people expect much more interactivity now, This keeps coming up. Personally I keep thinking that devs and cv-driven development might be to blame as I rarely hear any customer demand anything that demands a frontend framework for their web sites (now web apps , that's another story).
Seconded. Actual users have little demand. Especially non-tech users. They just take what devs give them. Frontend stuff seems mostly fashion-driven these days, with designers copying other designers. I can't imagine any user actually asking for hero images, hamburger menus, floating headers/footers, webfonts, or making JS required to render article text.
The real problem is that fashions are even possible on the web. This is what Ted Nelson calls the "triumph of typesetters over authors," and it's one of the great tragedies of the computer age. We could have had a real, global, hypertext system with working two way links and micropayments, but instead we got HTTP and HTML.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. I still do that on my case, a good 95% of the features I develop work without Javascript. One additional benefit is that if your JS crash for any reason, most of the things are still working.
I've never even heard of Javascript "crashing". Is that a thing that happens?
- Visitors with a bandwidth so low it takes a long time for the JS to download completely (so making it work in the mean time helps a lot).
- Visitors with outdated browsers where your JS will stop on some unsupported feature you forgot to polyfill (I usually add a polyfill after when I see it but in the mean time it works), that's what I meant by "crashing", it never works 100% of the time in 100% of the cases, it depends on the browser as well.
Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. At some point (maybe after the popularity of Google Maps?) nobody wanted progressive enhancement and it was totally cool to just ignore users who had JS turned off. It made web app development so much easier, but probably less user friendly. It feels li…
It does make development easier, and at some point it just doesn't make sense to support any longer. If the number of people who visit your site with JavaScript disabled is less than the number of people who visit using the Opera browser, does it really make sense to add [number of supported browsers] x [JS on | JS off] permutations to your testing workload? Is spending the time and resources on creating a non-JS sit…
If your site doesn't work for people with JS disabled, you're unlikely to see significant traffic from people with JS disabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean about dropping i18n? How can we drop that, force everyone to speak Esperanto?
English obviously. It is quite far fetched, but I'm just tired of seeing countless hours wasted because the numbers aren't localized properly or RTL breaks layout. It's superfluous, people should have their native tongue and should learn English as means of international communication. Also imagine encoding problems which are also great PITA going away with ascii-only technologies.
It's almost a caricature of the stereotypical redneck who has never left the country and gets mad when they overhear someone speaking Spanish at Fiesta, muttering "but this is America" under their breath.