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

141–150 of 328 posts

Re: All you may need is HTML

#141

Post by stevenjgarner »

ryloric wrote: post #134
bombcar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website of…

> 7 fucking declarations. That's how much CSS it took to turn that grotesque pile of shit into this easy-to-read masterpiece. Such drastic difference with basic adjustments, damn

Too oversimplified ... no images (with captions), no other media (video, audio), no tables or grids, etc.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#142

Post by vlunkr »

kerkeslager wrote: post #66
ghusto wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication Isn't that what HTML gives us?

Well, that was what HTML was on track to give us. But once JS and CSS were introduced, semantic HTML that was actually semantic stopped developing, under the assumption that if someone needed, for example, a tab area or slide show, they could develop those themselves with CSS/JS. What we've gotten instead is extremely vague elements like "section" that don't communicate what the elements are . If HTML were truly sema…

It would be so great if there were more built-in interactive elements like tabs, modals, and tooltips. How many times have these incredibly basic things been re-created?

Re: All you may need is HTML

#143

Post by Animats »

All you need is HTML if you have a tool which edits it properly.

I'm still using Dreamweaver 8 for some old sites. I have to run it under Wine emulation now, but it still works. It still does a good job of layout.

Is there a more modern round-trip HTML/CSS tool?

Re: All you may need is HTML

#144

Post by hoechst »

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…

So you'd write (presumably a big) admin web interface in straight XML + CSS by hand? I don't know the details, but that sounds like a very long and painful process which will end up being hellish to maintain, plus a huge amount of training time for new devs to get familiar with the system.

If you even find new devs who'd want to work on this. Who wants to acquire very niche domain knowledge that you can't apply anywhere else?

Re: All you may need is HTML

#145

Post by DesiLurker »

I was thinking about this the other day in reference to how slow reddit is compared to HN even though they are essentially achieving the same function. I get that there are images, video & volume of posts/users served difference but I'd bet if they made just a pain text version of it it would be order of magnitude faster and browsable.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#146

Post by hk__2 »

> 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. Using a custom DejaVU makes the reading experience consistent.

I don’t get this argument. As a reader, I’m used to the monospace font of my OS because it’s the one I see everywhere. I don’t care at all about the fonts users of other OSes see. This custom font makes _your_ experience consistent, not the readers’.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#147

Post by jcutrell »

truculent wrote: post #18

I sympathise with the main thrust of the post but, to nitpick, this is just plain wrong: > But mostly css appeals to our vanity and ego. Design isn't just about aesthetics. Good information design, clear visual hierarchy, accessibility, etc. all help with communication. The author's effective use of spacing, bold, and code tags show us that they know this intuitively, despite what they write.

Yeah, this is just some purist BS in my opinion.

Message / medium have always mixed together.

Even folks who say content needs to be figured out before presentation... it's not so cut and dry. Your medium shapes your message - they are not mutually exclusive and for the receiver of the message, the medium matters for their reception of the message.

I understand the sentiment that TONS of CSS is probably a bad use of time. But trying to demonize or otherwise attach aesthetics the label of "meaningless" is, in my opinion, just as much egocentric as they claim CSS to be.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#148

Post by kerkeslager »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #79
kerkeslager wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that was what HTML was on track to give us. But once JS and CSS were introduced, semantic HTML that was actually semantic stopped developing, under the assumption that if someone needed, for example, a tab area or slide show, they could develop those themselves with CSS/JS. What we've gotten instead is extremely vague elements like "section" that don't communicate what the elements are . If HTML were truly sema…

I agree with you, but also I think the section tag is one of the biggest leaps forward we've had. Putting an id on a whole section instead of a name= crap for references, and actually using nesting for hierarchy. All the HTML5 input types are also an example of semantics impriving. It could be way better, but it's not a total stalemate

> I agree with you, but also I think the section tag is one of the biggest leaps forward we've had. Putting an id on a whole section instead of a name= crap for references, and actually using nesting for hierarchy.

How does this differ from how was being used before?

I've switched to using simply because it's a better name, but I'm not sure it's made any meaningful difference in my code.

Another example of the pointlessness of this issue is and . I've rarely seen code where these weren't used exactly the same as and were before. In rare cases, I've seen someone do something like make a different color rather than italic, and that's almost always been a bad idea, because when HTML authors use they almost always intend for it to be italic. In fact, I'd say we should just continue using and because those communicate intent better, but at this point I've worked in too many codebases that decided that could be hacked to mean "icon" (i.e. using FontAwesome) which is a horrible, awful, no-good, bad, hack.

> All the HTML5 input types are also an example of semantics impriving. It could be way better, but it's not a total stalemate

That's true, but I think we'd be moving forward a lot more quickly if we weren't devoting most of standards development resources toward giving companies more fine-grained control of our browsers through CSS/JS.

Re: All you may need is HTML

#149

Post by 6510 »

low_tech_love wrote: post #58
bombcar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of http://motherfuckingwebsite.com and http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com But the key, underlying point to ALL this stuff is that you do NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT PRESENTATION until you have the CONTENT. A huge temptation is to spend hours and hours tweaking the presentation as a way of avoiding actually creating the content; this is the real danger. (should mention https://thebestmotherfucking.website of…

Wow, thanks for those links! No joke; the CSS on the better site is literally going to become my default CSS from now on.

? what are we dinosaurs? You might as well leave out the closing

tags if you are going to be like that.

If the whole point of your website is to brag about code to accomplish reasonable formatting.... can we at least have code formatting? I think I have enough bandwidth to afford some line breaks.

Client side GA????

Re: All you may need is HTML

#150

Post by newhotelowner »

I have been writing some puppeteer/node js scripts to download invoices/statements and to scrap some data from different vendors/service providers. (ATT, Spectrum, Gas, electric, etc).

Pretty much all the sites are now a days single page or with tons of JavaScript with a lot of xhr requests. Those xhr requests are huge too. Loading screens everywhere. Some of the loading screens are 5-7 seconds long.

And I have no luck with banks sites. They put a lot of efforts to block access.

Post reply on HN