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

All you may need is HTML

fabiensanglard.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 328 posts

Re: All you may need is HTML

#111

Post by whstl »

bob1029 wrote: post #99
crabbone wrote: post #87

Some years ago I was interviewing for head of automation position, and in the process was asked how'd I go about making sure a Web admin interface (to a product that by and large doesn't need a Web interface, think, in the same category as Kubernetes) is well-tested. To which I responded that I'd not use any JavaScript. Ideally, XML with stylesheets. Very light-weight, renders extremely fast, and is extremely friendl…

> if they don't put a fashionable JavaScript framework into job description, they will not be able to hire front-end programmers. This is exactly why we are vague with tech stack in our job reqs. Why would you want talent that is laser-focused on specific keywords? What is the average lifetime of a JS/CSS framework? The game isn't to come in knowing this crap. It's to grasp fundamentals such that you can quickly lear…

I agree, but here's the catch: if you're looking for this kind of employee, you won't be hiring "less skilled" people, you'll be hiring "more skilled, more expensive".

What people mean by "I will not be able to hire front-end programmers" is actually "I won't be able to hire cheap devs".

Re: All you may need is HTML

#112

Post by PaulHoule »

ozim wrote: post #106
webdood90 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can't get anything done if nobody wants to do the work

I see you got downvoted but people don’t get that choice of technology based on who you can hire is a valid point. I remember a guy who wanted to make company documentation in LaTeX. Well yes it is great tool and we could put it in a git repo and render nice documents for the customers easily. Downside was 15-20 sales people who were not thrilled to use it and spend time learning how to use it.

I think a lot of devs are frustrated with the state of modern Javascript. As I speak I am waiting for "mvn install" to run for a system that has a Java back end and a Javascript front end which compiles both. I think the Java part would finish in about 20 seconds, the Javascript bit is more like 250 seconds. There would be 250 seconds of working instead of posting to HN if the system was "100% pure Java".

(To be fair I am mostly depending on an incremental build and I'd say Java turns around in 2s, Javascript in about 20s. One of those breaks my chain of thought, the other doesn't.)

Re: All you may need is HTML

#113

Post by xjay »

kevincox wrote: post #4

> Originally this website's font-family simply requested monospace. This approach resulted in varying reading experience depending on the OS. Windows browsers got Consolas, Linux users got DejaVu Sans Mono, and macOS people got Courier. I find it so sad that our browsers have such bad default fonts that all websites feel the need to override them to get an acceptable look. It would be great if browsers had decent def…

I noticed the web site has a downloadable font, which is fine as long as it's optional, the problem is that many web sites have the bad practice of using the private unicode range for icons. Now the web site has become an accessibility problem. Downloadable fonts are optional, and there is no fallback mechanism like we have with img and alt text.

I'll happily lump JavaScript in as a major accessibility concern. JS is most often used where it shouldn't (most recent in memory is the Unreal Engine docs). Using JS for such simple presentations is like building a 5000-story building to print a sheet of paper, when all you needed was the pre-printed sheet of paper (HTML, CSS).

Re: All you may need is HTML

#114

Post by PaulHoule »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #39
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consolas is not bad. DejaVu is not bad. Only Courier/Courier New are so bad as to be unusable, it seems Apple wants to push web developers to use font overrides.

It is a bit odd that "monospace" in a mac browser gets you Courier/Courier New, because macOS has come standard with Menlo for ages and Monaco since the OS 9 days, both of which are excellent monospace fonts that are far and away better than either Courier. Even weirder, outside of browsers requesting a monospace font will get you Menlo. Newer releases also have San Francisco Mono that it could use instead, which is…

Apple is notorious for wanting to push people away from portable and easy-to-use web applications to non-portable, expensive to develop, and frequently worse mobile apps.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#115

Post by [deleted] »

kevincox wrote: post #4

> Originally this website's font-family simply requested monospace. This approach resulted in varying reading experience depending on the OS. Windows browsers got Consolas, Linux users got DejaVu Sans Mono, and macOS people got Courier. I find it so sad that our browsers have such bad default fonts that all websites feel the need to override them to get an acceptable look. It would be great if browsers had decent def…

[deleted]

Re: All you may need is HTML

#116

Post by kevincox »

xjay wrote: post #113
kevincox wrote: post #4

> Originally this website's font-family simply requested monospace. This approach resulted in varying reading experience depending on the OS. Windows browsers got Consolas, Linux users got DejaVu Sans Mono, and macOS people got Courier. I find it so sad that our browsers have such bad default fonts that all websites feel the need to override them to get an acceptable look. It would be great if browsers had decent def…

I noticed the web site has a downloadable font, which is fine as long as it's optional, the problem is that many web sites have the bad practice of using the private unicode range for icons. Now the web site has become an accessibility problem. Downloadable fonts are optional, and there is no fallback mechanism like we have with img and alt text. I'll happily lump JavaScript in as a major accessibility concern. JS is…

https://www.figma.com/file/zQUSuJaUeIWStngFKgpgsz/Plato-Desi...

Re: All you may need is HTML

#117

Post by nzealand »

Does anybody know of a buy once/own for life editor that has Dreamweaver's concept of templates?

Dreamweaver lets you pull in header/ footer HTML from a template, then see the complete HTML in the editor.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#118

Post by OkayPhysicist »

tolmasky wrote: post #3

You may not even need HTML. HTML is subject to different renderings on different browsers, confusing features that may not be supported on different browses, and may tempt you to use JavaScript (which can throw "errors" if written incorrectly). If you stick to text files, you'll never have to go to caniuse.com ever. Need styles? Just make a PDF and throw that online. During the "XML HTML" phase the web went through,…

> HTML is subject to different renderings on different browsers

This only matters if you actually care about exactly how your website renders on any given browser. Most websites don't have any need to care. PDFs are the worst for this: They care, A LOT. Which means locking you in to some hideous rectangle that's a different aspect ratio than any monitors I own, locking down the fonts and colors so that I can't just rely on system defaults, etc.

If all you need is to convey text, and maybe take some input, HTML is a fantastic solution.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#119

Post by horsawlarway »

myfonj wrote: post #102
horsawlarway wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly - it'd be pretty nice to be able to opt-in/out of the default user agent styles applied by browsers. If we really want to preserve compatibility - opt-in to a version. Keep it all the same as current if there's no tag on the page, but if you add something like or something, apply an improved set of default styles. Get rid of the need for resets with Basically - I'd love a way to allow browser vendors to dram…

I agree that defaults are not perfect, but I'd like to add that the initial idea was that they are, well, defaults, and you -- as a user -- are supposed to adjust them to what you prefer. In some dashboard usually called "preferences" or "settings". And fact is that you still can: you can tell your browser "for this script, for serif, use this font family, for sans use that one" etc etc. You can set you preferred tex…

Yes, I know. Back in the fun days when a browser was supposed to be my "user" agent. Before they became the mini-os they are today.

There's nothing here that would stop you from still doing that.

But if we're talking about practicality... I think far more people would get a benefit from improved defaults (as long as they're not breaking existing sites).

While I've modified the user styles for my chrome profile as a part of being a web developer, I'm not aware of a single non-developer acquaintance who has (literally - none). Honestly, not even many of the devs I've worked with have done it.

It's just not all that relevant when the defaults are so bad that all the sites are overriding them anyways. Makes it very hard to apply a set of user styles that's sane, so no one does.

Make the defaults better, and maybe you can end up back there.

Post reply on HN