I doubt devs are "ashamed" of making js web apps. The main issue is that it takes more effort to do so than a traditional web app. There are browser specific quirks. Frameworks like rails are so well-integrated with the db layer that it will be difficult to match that productivity with pure JS apps. And finally, a lot of devs don't want to take the time to learn, when the current standard is perfectly acceptable for most use cases.
Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
61–70 of 263 posts
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#62Only if you never need any referrals from search engines. I know a site that has this awesome locally sourced food delivery/pickup system. Connecting consumers directly with the growers. Their site is 100% in JS. And if you google for anything even remotely close to what this site sells you simply cannot find them. Unless you are a members only app site would I say progressive enhancement is dead. Well that is unless…
It’s a myth that if you use a client side MVC framework
that your application’s content cannot be indexed by
search engines. In fact, Discourse forums were indexable
by Google the day we launched.
They are probably a good case to follow, if you want to see what people's experiences with SEO for JS-based services are.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#63At some point recently, the browser transformed from being an awesome interactive document viewer into being the world’s most advanced, widely-distributed application runtime.
This is the key sentence in the article and this is why I was motivated to become a web developer. Recently someone asked me if I felt like I was missing out by doing most of my programming on the web since desktop apps are "real programming" and I said no because the web is the best environment for writing apps today. I don't have to choose whether I want to write for Mac OS which I use myself, or Windows which most consumers use or Linux which hardcore techies use. I don't have to choose if my mobile app is iOS or Android first. Sure there are still tradeoffs, and sometimes a desktop or native mobile app is still going to be a good choice. But the browser today is an amazing environment that everyone on the web has access to and it's only getting better. And we should be excited about leveraging everything modern browsers can do to make great software.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, exactly, is the issue with writing a simple content site that requires JS? If you aren't pulling in half a MB of JS, but it does require scripting to function, I don't see the problem. Just because I could spend the effort to be progressive doesn't constrain me to have to do it. It doesn't make me a lazy programmer either: just pragmatic. 99.99% of the people visiting my site have JS enabled and I'm happy to su…
Javascript-dependent content _can_ present problems for search engine accessibility
I have to assume, in Google’s case anyway, that they are indexing according to ‘what the user sees’. Not to do so would means lower-quality search results. Users don’t care how the page ‘happens’.
I make this assumption because most of us don’t actually know how Google works, acting as a user’s proxy is in Google’s interest, and it is certainly within their technological capability. (Let me emphasize assume, again.)
This would require that the crawler actually renders sites, indexes the resulting DOM, and clicks what can be clicked. A headless Chrome, perhaps.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a valid generalization. On a page that doesn't use JavaScript, some links, form fields, and/or buttons may be unlabeled, but a blind user at least knows they're there and might be able to look at some hints to their functionality, such as URLs or element IDs. Moreover, the controls and interactions are standard. What happens if the developer attaches some functionality to a device-dependent event, suc…
Today's reasonably-built JavaScript-based applications are built using HTML as templates. They don't use a as a button, they use a as a button. They don't invent navigation using JavaScript, they use tags and a JavaScript-based router. Take a look at discuss.emberjs.com, which uses Discourse (which is powered by Ember... INCEPTION): On the front page, every navigation, including the links on top and the links to indi…
You're right to point out that the current best practice is to use HTML as intended, including semantic markup for links and buttons. Still, some developers attach mouse and/or touch events to semantically undistinguished elements without providing appropriate markup. For instance, the TodoMVC examples do this (including the Ember.js one). I guess it's time for me to start submitting pull requests.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#66"Friendly reminder that "people with JS disabled" includes those on high-latency networks, bad firewalls, and browsers you don't support." - @jcoglan https://twitter.com/jcoglan/status/370173041193406464
friendly reminder that people using browsers from last century may not be your target demo
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#67Sometimes I wonder whether advocates for heavy client-side JavaScript ever bother to test on mobile devices, because it very much seems that in the majority of cases they don't. The vast majority of JavaScript-based "show HN" submissions I've seen don't work on mobile browsers well or at all, to the point where I've been trained not to click them. This submission from a few days ago is an example, and last I checked it caused browser crashes and, even if you managed to load it, was unusable with an iPad: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6270451
Edit: Here is another example from the past few days that's unusable on mobile: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6302825
This is a common problem with media sites. I dread trying to load quartz, usa today, gawker, etc since every thick-client media site is intermittently a bad citizen on mobile browsers (for example, gawker in Chrome on iOS currently perpetually reloads the page). Even when these kinds of sites work, there's often a multi-second delay where where the user has to sit and watch elements fly around as the page is built.
Edit again: just to be clear, if you are a non-technical product manager or CEO type, my comment should not be interpreted in any way as an implication that the web or JavaScript is somehow inherently bad and therefore your developers must build a "native app." My comment's intended audience is developers with a deep, working understanding of these technologies.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
And people using NoScript.
And who cares about people using NoScript, no one should. They are in the vast minority, not worth the trouble accommodating for them.
A minority that is growing quite fast , people are not stupid prepare for the javascript backlash like Flash hate wave. If your content is not worth it , if i need javascript just to read some text , if you dont explain why i should turn javascript on with a noscript tag ,then you'll lose me and many more as an audience.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#69> Worrying about browsers without JavaScript is like worrying about whether you’re backwards compatible with HTML 3.2 or CSS2. At some point, you have to accept that some things are just part of the platform.
This is the key bit.
It's a pretty popular attitude on HN to dismiss supporting IE, or IE7, or even IE8 or IE9 -- despite having significant user bases. But there's still a strong vocal contingent which argues for webpages to still work fine with without JavaScript, despite it being a miniscule user base. They both seem to come from philosophical standpoints, rather than anything practical. (Granted, SEO is a valid consideration, but that's fundamentally a different conversation.)
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#70Not a single mention of SEO on the article. I guess Google is dead too.