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

Everyone has JavaScript, right?

kryogenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#71

Post by moron4hire »

romaniv wrote: post #65
moron4hire wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I entirely agree that JavaScript should be developed in a Progressive Enhancement style, for two reasons: If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. Semantic HTML and CSS are pretty amazing at adapting content fluidly and dynamically to a wide range of users and devi…

If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. It's a disingenuous argument introducing an artificial dichotomy. If I can make a working website in HTML, but it works better with some additional JS, why exactly shouldn't I improve user's experience? And on the other hand, content sit…

My point is, you probably can't actually make it better in even the majority of cases. I haven't seen a single site get hijacked scrolling right, yet. Scrolling is for the browser.

And I do see applications in the browser, because I write them. It is really hard to imagine how 3D graphics and virtual reality have anything to do with traditional HTML and browsing habits.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#72

Post by simonw »

cabirum wrote: post #28
indeyets wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initial server-side rendering is still an option. User will be able to read the page, at least. And if URLs use a sane scheme, navigation would work too

Not an option. Concrete examples: anything webgl, image editing, games, even a simple curl app from yesterdays post (curlbuilder.com). Implementing curl app server-side would require double work which is against principles of progressive enhancement (or programming in general).

Implementing http://www.curlbuilder.com/ with progressive enhancement (without duplicate code) is trivial - in fact it would make a great tutorial on how to do progressive enhancement.

Just implement it as a regular form-based application, then add some JavaScript which Ajax-submits the form data and loads in the generated curl command on each keystroke.

(Or you could use server-side JS and share code on the client and server)

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#73

Post by agumonkey »

cabirum wrote: post #12
joelanman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is at the bottom - progressive enhancement. If at least the html makes it across the wire, a progressively enhanced website will still "work": you can still read content, click links, submit forms http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-...

See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9432629 The web is no longer a collection of text content with links and forms. Many, is not most, web apps cannot be represented using html alone as progressive enhancement suggests. The core functionality just isn't there.

Almost a case for jQuery style of web design. Even though cleaner, more solid js frameworks allow for better apps, it renders the web goal dead, moving toward some kind of prototypical Self/SmallTalk environment, too dynamic, not enough core state that can watched without much specific machinery.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#74

Post by moron4hire »

tomjen3 wrote: post #59
moron4hire wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I entirely agree that JavaScript should be developed in a Progressive Enhancement style, for two reasons: If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. Semantic HTML and CSS are pretty amazing at adapting content fluidly and dynamically to a wide range of users and devi…

Reddit could work without JS, you would just have to reload the page every single time you commented. You currently have to do that on HN too, so you can see how annoying it is.

i.e. not annoying at all?

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#75

Post by bottled_poe »

cabirum wrote: post #6

Right, but these problems are not specific to javascript requests. Any request can fail, be blocked, interfered with, or partially received. Users can switch off CSS, too. Html page may not load completely. So what? Some of these issues are fixed with https or http/2. Some with CDN fallbacks or just sane coding. Some are not developers problems - such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users…

I don't want dynamically loaded content.

I don't want pages to reload unexpectedly.

I don't want a site to break standard UI behavior.

I don't want externally hosted scripts to track my activity.

None of this adds value to my experience as a user.

I do want to view the content - ideally in a single HTTP request.

Just load the damn content.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#76

Post by donatj »

briandear wrote: post #63
tomjen3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't have been much of a problem if CSS hadn't sucked so badly. If you want certain layouts and have to support old browsers you have to use JS.

The corollary of that is that "have to support old browsers" nonsense. Perhaps if everyone stopped supporting older browsers, the world would be a better place.

As I see it not supporting older browsers is just a middle finger to the poor.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#77

Post by donatj »

bottled_poe wrote: post #75
cabirum wrote: post #6

Right, but these problems are not specific to javascript requests. Any request can fail, be blocked, interfered with, or partially received. Users can switch off CSS, too. Html page may not load completely. So what? Some of these issues are fixed with https or http/2. Some with CDN fallbacks or just sane coding. Some are not developers problems - such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users…

I don't want dynamically loaded content. I don't want pages to reload unexpectedly. I don't want a site to break standard UI behavior. I don't want externally hosted scripts to track my activity. None of this adds value to my experience as a user. I do want to view the content - ideally in a single HTTP request. Just load the damn content.

Amen.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#78

Post by tomjen3 »

briandear wrote: post #63
tomjen3 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't have been much of a problem if CSS hadn't sucked so badly. If you want certain layouts and have to support old browsers you have to use JS.

The corollary of that is that "have to support old browsers" nonsense. Perhaps if everyone stopped supporting older browsers, the world would be a better place.

How would you implement that in the real world? Because you can't implement it then that argument might as well involve magic.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#79

Post by lfowles »

scrollaway wrote: post #19
moron4hire wrote: post #9

I'm not sure I entirely agree that JavaScript should be developed in a Progressive Enhancement style, for two reasons: If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. Semantic HTML and CSS are pretty amazing at adapting content fluidly and dynamically to a wide range of users and devi…

The web is trying to do two things at once right now: Be a platform for applications and be a medium for textual, document-like content. The former obviously needs a proper scripting language. The latter should definitely be built with progressive enhancement in mind because it's a good thing. Why this urge, on either side, to immediately apply their issues to an area which doesn't warrant it? Apps can't be progressi…

> The former obviously needs a proper scripting language.

I wonder, have there been any experiments in major browsers to execute non-javascript code?

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#80

Post by vacri »

demarq wrote: post #61

Firstly and this may suprise you you... We know you exist. Yes you with a tinfoil hat, you under a repressive corporate regime. You keep trying to make your presence known through ranty blog posts, angry comments thinking we dont know you exist. We know but we found that not only are you a minority but our lives as designers and developers are a million times easier if we just ignore you. Yes i know you want to surf…

Ranty, angry comments? Pot. Kettle. Black.

The lives of designers and developers are a million times easier if you just ignore accessibility requirements, too. But you know what? If you can't make a good design that caters to a variety of consumers, then you're not a good designer. Design is about melding form and utility, not just making something pretty. The less utility you have, the more you are an 'artist', and the less you are a 'designer'. Besides, if you don't care about anything but the most common, optimum user, you may as well return to the "This page best viewed at 800x600 on Netscape Navigator" '90s.

Post reply on HN