111–120 of 230 posts
This is the standard tirade^W manifesto about how web users forced corporations to ruin the Web. Oh no. Why did you patron Walmart when you could have gone to your local mom&pops. That but for the Web. Petite bourgeoisie sentiment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly That's exactly where the hate comes from: I don't want you, the web designer, to have the power to create experiences, because you (collectively) use that power to force experiences on me that I don't want to have.
I didn't express myself as "the web designer" nor I implied that I wished to share experiences with you. What I meant is that I can share experiences to my friends via the browser, which act as a kind of a simple prototyping platform. I want the power to create experiences for some people I know, in a niche setting, without intentionally inviting anyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it gives you the power to create experiences and share them almost effortlessly That's exactly where the hate comes from: I don't want you, the web designer, to have the power to create experiences, because you (collectively) use that power to force experiences on me that I don't want to have.
Don't visit the website
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't visit the website
I hope we can have a more reasoned debate than this. This topic is really important and frankly there's so much to it I hope that hearing others I can learn more. When I read some of the thread above what I am hearing is: "I don't want people to be able to run programs on my computer without asking explicitly". Which is exactly what the modern web and modern web browsers enable. If you learned computing in the 90's y…
... As opposed to not liking to run an installer for an unsecured program?
App stores have the same issue. You just juggle the trust from some third party to another third party
If you want to do anything more complex than transfering text and images you'll need to trust a lot of things
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't visit the website
I hope we can have a more reasoned debate than this. This topic is really important and frankly there's so much to it I hope that hearing others I can learn more. When I read some of the thread above what I am hearing is: "I don't want people to be able to run programs on my computer without asking explicitly". Which is exactly what the modern web and modern web browsers enable. If you learned computing in the 90's y…
Because Javascript can run in the browser without the assumption that you completely trust it, browser developers have put a load of work into restricting what it can do, even within the browser. Of course, sometimes there are holes in the sandbox - nothing is perfect - but I think it's vastly better than giving any program you decide to run complete access to your computer.
(Better for the majority, that is. If you're truly paranoid and have enough time, explicitly deciding what to trust can be better. But I think that's <1% of people - certainly not including me.)
The thing that makes me disagree with proponents of the "smol"/"cheap"/etc Web is their totally misguided insistence on personal webpages as a sui generis medium for self-expression wrt layout and styling. > Until we adopt simple and stable building materials, all websites will continue to look the same. Yeah, big deal. Who cares if websites look the same? Wait, let me put that another way: we should care whether web…
> Who cares if websites look the same? A lot of books look the same too, but that works pretty well for me tbh. I do not find books to be homogeneous as a result.
In a sense OP wants E-ink screens and org/vimwiki/markdown. Styling is where the problem it claims to criticize begins; if you want a truly accessible hypertext book, then you don't need styling, the user should be in charge of this, and the default theme would be whatever easily readable font, black on white, headings 36pt bold, paragraphs 14pt regular, every elements as blocks. Epub, in usage, is actually a cool fo…
Apps vs. Content. Web is for both but if you can and want to do just content it should be easy and simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been asking for a while if it could be a good idea to make something like asm.js but for webpages: Something to put in a meta tag or something early in the page that lets the browser know this webpage will only use a known-to-be-fast-and-predictable subset of html and css and only use js from a standardized library that provides things like autocomplete and other actually high value interactions.
You don't need JS for basic autocomplete in 2023, you can use "datalist" in HTML: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/da... A lot of basic high value interactions are more directly encoded in HTML today than a lot of developers expect to need JS for. Some other tags to pay attention to: summary/details, progress, meter, input type="color|date|time|datetime|range". It's an interesting relearning…
This does not seem to load data dynamically, it seems to be a way to show data from a predefined list?
Another huge reason for the status quo is a lot of companies actively try to obfuscate their frontend code for a variety of reasons, and a lot unwittingly do it as part of minification to squeeze out a little bit of extra efficiency both in terms of payload size and parsing time for clients (every token counts!).
That said, I would love a world where the de-jure frontend syntax was less ambiguous to the point where minification is essentially a lossless operation other than the actual names of things.
At the browser level we have to make the decision: do we want clients to be able to figure exactly what is running in their browser? If the answer is no, the current situation is great, if the answer is yes, the current situation is pretty bleak, and will actually get bleaker with the advent of WASM-based payloads where we now need to disassemble on top of everything else.