Earlier quoted context omitted.
Native apps allow Google to collect much more information than they can via the browser. They also allow for a wider range of advertising opportunities.
Except for people who won't put up with advertising in native apps.
You probably don't need a single-page app
391–400 of 522 posts
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
You simply trade back-end frameworks complexities for the front-end framework complexities. With the right architecture there is no huge difference IMO, just of course you also need to upgrade your teams so that they can handle a lot more tasks on the front-end than with SSRs (and you'll probably need less back-end devs)
Front-end frameworks have a way of going in and out of fashion / support much faster than backend ones.
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#393Unpopular opinion: I love SPAs for simple stuff. Yes, they're a ton of work. But the feel of them is unparalleled. I have my personal home page written as a Vue SPA. It was a silly amount of work to get together, and not everything works perfectly. BUT: it moves like a rocket. I pre-render the simple front page, so initial load is nearly instantaneous (especially with cloudflare &c), and, by the time a visitor finish…
No criticisms here, just observations on what gets missed generally by people who go too far along the build tools path and overlook things like document structure along the way.
The actual document could benefit from HTML5 niceties such as more accessible elements than 'div' and the table elements. Table has its place but the world is moving on to CSS Grid for proper layout of content rather than tables. I prefer to see 'article', 'section' 'aside', 'nav' and even things like 'cite'. For added usefulness to Google a few structured markup snippets for all of your publications will help nicely. The schema.org 'article' is a good place to start on that, you can also render your HTML from this structured data if in JSON+LD if you insist on clever wizardry or just put the Rdfa (or whatever) tags in the HTML.
The UX is not truly accessible, the home button is not a good touch target size plus the navigation is against the 'don't make me think' principle.
So it might 'move like a rocket' but if the site visitor can't work out how to get the navigation then what is the point? A vast magnitude of time is lost.
A favicon could help with accessibility too. If someone has lots open then a tab identifier helps. Go through the necessary to make a PWA instead of a SPA to get that right - nowadays you need lots of different things for 'add to homescreen' and whatnot. Whilst you are at it include some useful metadata in the header for people sharing your page on social media. Set the meta description with 'nosnippet' so Google shows people exactly what you want them to see. Nobody sees your site before Google so it is important.
Sometimes a focus on gadgets is counterintuitive, so the inline SVGs base64 encoded might be very clever, but to someone that understands SVGs this makes no sense at all. They are better as document content, not in an img tag and not base64 encoded. They will compress better that way too.
If you did the SVGs normally then you can use currentColor to effect a mouseover, you can use their title tags to show some text on the mouseover.
Also, writing an SVG as something like this:
path d="M384 1408q0 80-56 136t-136 56-136-56-56-136 56-136 136-56 136 56 56 136zm0-512q0 80-56 136t-136 56-136-56-56-136 56-136 136-56 136 56 56 136zm1408 416v192q0 13-9.5 22.5t-22.5 9.5h-1216q-13 0-22.5-9.5t-9.5-22.5v-192q0-13 9.5-22.5t22.5-9.5h1216q13 0 22.5 9.5t9.5 22.5zm-1408-928q0 80-56 136t-136 56-136-56-56-136 56-136 136-56 136 56 56 136zm1408 416v192q0 13-9.5 22.5t-22.5 9.5h-1216q-13 0-22.5-9.5t-9.5-22.5v-192q0-13 9.5-22.5t22.5-9.5h1216q13 0 22.5 9.5t9.5 22.5zm0-512v192q0 13-9.5 22.5t-22.5 9.5h-1216q-13 0-22.5-9.5t-9.5-22.5v-192q0-13 9.5-22.5t22.5-9.5h1216q13 0 22.5 9.5t9.5 22.5z"
is a bit bulky when what you really need for that is to do (pseudo svg here) 'group fill=currentColor stroke=none id=circle-and-line' [ 'circle r=[radius]' 'rect x=[origin] y=[origin] width=[width] height=[height]' ] 'use y=[minus-a-bit] href=circle-and-line' 'use y=[plus-a-bit] href=circle-and-line'
In that way you can get a super concise and super editable icon for your CV that you can edit and tweak in document. It will also have the currentColor niceties. Sometimes I think that just because you can put sausages in a blender doesn't mean you should. Those SVGs really are wrongful being inlined and base64 encoded when HTML provides perfect and better mechanisms built in for doing whatever it is you are trying to achieve with them. Also, SVGs are best hand drawn for a pet project site, internet SVGs are just the disgorgings of an Adobe product, normally shapes for icons can be drawn with rectangles, circles, polygons and lines specified with integers, the Adobe products use NASA numbers instead (none decimal places).
I would say that you would have a lot more fun if you got the basics of document structure, accessibility and awesome SVG goodness done right, with measurables in Google search results and eyeballs.
We all live in glass houses and I am definitely throwing stones here with this critique, but the web gets better with a little bit of discussion on these things.
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our controllers use APIs. This was common before SPAs became all the rage.
Indeed, that's true. While I'm not saying they're good for everything, one thing I like about SPAs is that the server can just serve up an API that is usable by both web and mobile clients. No duplication of templating/view logic between server and client as often happens when the server is serving up HTML.
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#395Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I don't have the complete context - SSR stack, app architecture, load times etc. So, I'm not in a position to comment on your SPA migration. But, I'd like to share thoughts from my current situation. We have a flagship product written in web forms (started in 2006). It's a big solution. Performance has always been a challenge with it. While I'm not proposing a complete rewrite into SPA, due to - migration requ…
> My proposal is to switch to json objects for information exchange between server and client. We'll get the benefits similar to SPA without rewriting for it If I understand your approach correctly, I often do something similar, but with modern ASP.NET Core MVC apps. Basically, I have a tiny bit of JavaScript that 'intercepts' all form POSTs and submits them using AJAX instead. Another tiny bit of JavaScript can then…
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My company (4,500+ people) ordered all products in their portfolio (~12 web apps) to migrate to SPA front ends about a year ago as a way to stand out from our competitors, and boy has it been painful. This doesn't seem like a problem of "MVC vs SPA". The same problem would occur if you were ordered to rebuild 12 apps written in Rails ( or whatever full-stack MVC framework) in a different one, like Django, for examp…
You overlooked this part: > Not only that, but extending these UIs will take more time in the future than their SSR versions due to the added complexity of the front end frameworks
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My proposal is to switch to json objects for information exchange between server and client. We'll get the benefits similar to SPA without rewriting for it If I understand your approach correctly, I often do something similar, but with modern ASP.NET Core MVC apps. Basically, I have a tiny bit of JavaScript that 'intercepts' all form POSTs and submits them using AJAX instead. Another tiny bit of JavaScript can then…
I’ve occasionally thought of doing SSR but making it possible to server render only a small part of the page in response to an API request and then just use JavaScript to swap in the html from the backend.
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#399This. So much this. My company (4,500+ people) ordered all products in their portfolio (~12 web apps) to migrate to SPA front ends about a year ago as a way to stand out from our competitors, and boy has it been painful. Prior to that initiative, we had been using the hybrid approach mentioned in this piece, embedding SPAs only where necessary and sticking to SSR everywhere else, which worked really well. Since the a…
Re: You probably don't need a single-page app
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great example, because the basic HTML version doesn't support keyboard shortcuts, which makes it a huge step back for me. It's certainly possible to have a server rendered app that uses JS sparingly for interactive behavior, but it blows away a lot of the benefits once you're doing significant DOM-manipulation.
If only there was a way to support keyboard shortcuts via plain old HTML... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_att...