81–90 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users switching off js. So if I run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of a browser extension, I'm "clueless"? Yet if I don't run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of JS, I'm a "luddite"? Considering that many browser extensions are implemented in JS, the only difference is in control: users…
Extensions have access to browser APIs not available to webpages and run on your every request. Thus they are inherently more dangerous. So installing unsigned extensions from questionable sources makes you clueless, yes. Vanilla js running on webpages should be considered relatively safe. It's sandboxed and not able to do anything - malicious of not - outside it's restricted environment. It can't even get your locat…
Malicious things within the sandbox however, are a free for all.
See also: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> such as clueless users installing malicious extensions or luddite users switching off js. So if I run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of a browser extension, I'm "clueless"? Yet if I don't run arbitrary, potentially-malicious code from the Web, in the form of JS, I'm a "luddite"? Considering that many browser extensions are implemented in JS, the only difference is in control: users…
Extensions have access to browser APIs not available to webpages and run on your every request. Thus they are inherently more dangerous. So installing unsigned extensions from questionable sources makes you clueless, yes. Vanilla js running on webpages should be considered relatively safe. It's sandboxed and not able to do anything - malicious of not - outside it's restricted environment. It can't even get your locat…
I've certainly recompiled native applications to throw out 'features' I don't want, but my "default" is to just not install such programs to begin with. Especially these days, since I tend to use minimalist "do one job" programs, rather than giant "desktop environment" stuff like Gnome/KDE. That applies to my phone too, since it runs a stripped-down install of Debian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Later versions of IE were able to run .NET code, which was what SilverLight was all about.
So imagine that, it was basically just MS leading the charge, which is probably why we only have JavaScript now.
I find more and more sites using JS for layout and it being an incredibly frustrating experience on my phone. The whole site loads and I'm reading the article for 4 or 5 seconds and then the js kicks in, scrolling locks, everything stops while The page redraws. On some sites, including Android Centeral of all things, this can stop me from reading text I ALREADY HAVE for upwards of 20 seconds while it reflows. Simply…
I almost reflexively hit the 'Reader View' button on iOS these days, to circumvent that.
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…
By taking an extreme position for the user, but not for the designer/developer, you're not making a fair comparison.
In the same way that designers don't force all visitors to calibrate their monitor colours before opening the site in Photoshop, to be as "authentic" to the "experience" as possible; likewise those of us browsing in Emacs or whatever don't expect your Unity-powered Minecraft clone to work for us.
What we do expect is that text-heavy, 'unavoidable' sites (eg. for governments, banks, etc.) aren't built inside Unity-powered Minecraft clones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I think they actually did for a while, but you had to use a flag to enable it?
(I actually wish they'd have gone ahead with adding the VM... I guess the utopia will be for another day)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Chrome currently supports NaCl, which allows running native-compiled non-JS code in the browser, but doesn't provide direct DOM access. A number of technologies have been used to provide non-JS code in browsers through plug-in APIs. And IE has directly supported, at different times, a number of non-JS languages in the browser as well.
So, yes, and not just "experiments".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I see it not supporting older browsers is just a middle finger to the poor.
Modern browsers are free, and if someone has a particularly old, underpowered computer, there are lightweight ones available (eg Midori - used to use it on an raspberry pi), though admittedly those have less mindshare.