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

DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

help.duckduckgo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#71

Post by deepstack »

benhoyt wrote: post #17

As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…

The lite version has a broken image at the bottom. Other than that it is very nostalgic of Alta Vista home page back in the days. Kudos to DDG for having such simple non-javascript version. In current days, non-javascript web page is on the rise. All web pages should have a non-javascript lite weight version.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#72

Post by xxyzz »

dumdum4356 wrote: post #65

If I add either lite or html search engine to FireFox, any search will result in page that only says "forbidden". Anyone else seeing this?

I've seen this for months. It seems to be caused by the 'Origin: null' header. But in my browser it only occurs when I search from context menu.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#73

Post by vanderZwan »

dredmorbius wrote: post #58
benhoyt wrote: post #17

As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…

lite is amazeballs as a command-line utility (leveraging any of several console-mode browsers, including w3m, lynx, links, elinks2, etc.). As a bash (or zsh) function: ddg () { /usr/bin/w3m "https://duckduckgo.com/lite?q=$*&kd=-1" } Note that this enables any bang searches as well, though you'll need to single quote these to avoid attempted history expansion. lite is also my default w3m search bookmark entry. So: ddg…

Similarly, in Firefox (and maybe other browsers) you can add keywords to bookmarks, meaning that the browser will open that bookmark if you first type the keyword. It will also then insert anything else you type into the bookmarked URL if it has a %s. So as an alternative, more reliable way to search MDN, I bookmarked this:

    https://duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=site%3Adeveloper.mozilla.org+%s
... and gave it the keyword >mdn (I add ">" as a prefix to all my keyworded bookmarks - avoid accidentally triggering or autocompleting to them).

If I'm browsing and need to look something up, I just hit CTRL+L followed by

    >mdn [whatever I'm looking for]
... and off we go

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#74

Post by IceWreck »

cookiengineer wrote: post #59

This seems nice in theory but reaches the wrong audience. Since a couple months ago DDG decided to block TOR Browser users, so I would guess that most people that were concerned about their privacy already moved on to the competition. Though it's nice to see better support for 2G slow networks, even when it's not for the sake of privacy as they claim.

No ? DDG is the default search engine for the Tor Browser. They even have a special Tor version if you dont want to use the clearnet one.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#75

Post by johnx123-up »

howeyc wrote: post #23
wh33zle wrote: post #19

The HTML version seems to not redirect to a URL specific to your search (i.e. it doesn't include a ?s= ... parameter). Anyone an idea how I can configure this search engine in Firefox Mobile? As far as I can see, there is no way I can teach FF Mobile to make a POST request instead.

The parameter is q https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=searchstring

But, they're using POST in the form

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#76

Post by dredmorbius »

vanderZwan wrote: post #73
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lite is amazeballs as a command-line utility (leveraging any of several console-mode browsers, including w3m, lynx, links, elinks2, etc.). As a bash (or zsh) function: ddg () { /usr/bin/w3m "https://duckduckgo.com/lite?q=$*&kd=-1" } Note that this enables any bang searches as well, though you'll need to single quote these to avoid attempted history expansion. lite is also my default w3m search bookmark entry. So: ddg…

Similarly, in Firefox (and maybe other browsers) you can add keywords to bookmarks, meaning that the browser will open that bookmark if you first type the keyword. It will also then insert anything else you type into the bookmarked URL if it has a %s. So as an alternative, more reliable way to search MDN, I bookmarked this: https://duckduckgo.com/lite/?q=site%3Adeveloper.mozilla.org+%s ... and gave it the keyword >md…

The benefit to bookmarks / keywords is flexibility and not having to wait for DDG to add (or fix) a given bang search.

The downside is that you're speaking your own language, and unless someone adopts your specific keywords, you can't tell them to, say, "bang dict" (if you can get away with saying that in the context).

This is a fundamental distinction between any private vs. shared language.

(People are very uncomfortable when dropped into my computing environment --- GUI, shells, editors, browsers, etc. They've all acquired several decades of personalisation. Works for me.)

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#77

Post by cookiengineer »

iamtedd wrote: post #63
cookiengineer wrote: post #59

This seems nice in theory but reaches the wrong audience. Since a couple months ago DDG decided to block TOR Browser users, so I would guess that most people that were concerned about their privacy already moved on to the competition. Though it's nice to see better support for 2G slow networks, even when it's not for the sake of privacy as they claim.

"Since a couple months ago DDG decided to block TOR Browser users," Do you have a source for that claim? A quick search returned nothing. Edit: I downloaded the (latest version of Tor Browser)-1 (10.0.12) and DDG is on the start page as the default search. No problems searching for things either.

Try using a mobile carrier and TOR on Android. You'll always get (and I quote) this:

"We've detected that you have connected over Tor. There appears to be an issue with the Tor Exit Node you are currently using. Please recreate your Tor circuit or restart your Tor browser in order to fix this. If this error persists, please let us know: error-lite-tor@duckduckgo.com"

And no, rotating the exit node or changing the identity won't help either.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#79

Post by dspillett »

jeduardo wrote: post #16

Just tested the pure HTML version and was pleased to find out that it does not force a minimum browser width upon the user. I usually set my desktop (1080p) to use a 3-column layout with i3 and am always bothered by the fact that I cannot escape from horizontal scrolling on every search I run on DDG. I needed to add the HTML version as a new search engine option in the browser options to have it running as default, b…

> not force a minimum browser width … 1080p … 3-column layout … cannot escape from horizontal scrolling

I have my second monitor in 1920×1080 portrait and sometimes that is an irritation at 1080px wide long before getting to the 640px your columns have. To pick one example, in Google search pages you lose over half the right-hand column without scrolling (though at least the main results are fully visible). A lot of layouts seem to assume having around 1280 pixels to play with (less a little for scroll bars).

I've found zooming out a little works fine usually, and modern browsers remember the setting, but that isn't perfect. If I unzoom on the main display it does so for tabs open on that site on the second too (to use the Google example again if I open maps or an image search on the main screen I probably want it at 100%) and some sites seem to actively resist being zoomed.

Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results

#80

Post by jeduardo »

dspillett wrote: post #79
jeduardo wrote: post #16

Just tested the pure HTML version and was pleased to find out that it does not force a minimum browser width upon the user. I usually set my desktop (1080p) to use a 3-column layout with i3 and am always bothered by the fact that I cannot escape from horizontal scrolling on every search I run on DDG. I needed to add the HTML version as a new search engine option in the browser options to have it running as default, b…

> not force a minimum browser width … 1080p … 3-column layout … cannot escape from horizontal scrolling I have my second monitor in 1920×1080 portrait and sometimes that is an irritation at 1080px wide long before getting to the 640px your columns have. To pick one example, in Google search pages you lose over half the right-hand column without scrolling (though at least the main results are fully visible). A lot of…

Indeed, zooming out is a trick I use for a couple websites but even so it isn't perfect. I often face the situation where 80% size is still too big or brings the dreadful horizontal scroll but 70% ends up being too small and very hard to read. These and layouts that bring colour combinations that break in dark mode (browser native or dark reader) are my current bane.
Post reply on HN