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

The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 387 posts

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#121

Post by dmhmr »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #114
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

One of the great things about accessibility is that it often doesn't just benefit people with disabilities. My wife and I have watched a lot of TV in the past year with the volume down and captioning on, while we enjoy some down time while our baby is sleeping. A ramped entrance to a building allows wheelchair-bound folks access, but it also helps able-bodied people using delivery dollies. Making simple, lightweight…

I might be misinterpreting your last sentence regarding M1 MacBook Pros. Are you saying they are underpowered for surfing the internet?

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#122

Post by wizzwizz4 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #95
salutonmundo wrote: post #63

The worst web browser I have access to is the "experimental" one on a Kindle 4. Most web pages that one might want to visit will not load in this web browser—because it does not support modern versions of TLS. For the reasons mentioned in this article—it's probably a good idea to keep plain HTTP access available on your websites.

The trouble is that you can’t support HTTP without completely undermining HTTPS. If you support HTTP at all , you’re damaging the experience for the almost everyone that could have used HTTPS: almost no one will get the HTTPS version unless you deliberately push them over to it, which you will only be able to do after page load by some JavaScript-based user-agent or feature-based sniffing, so now the page loads and t…

You can: have an “insecure.” version of your site, like people used to have a “secure.” version.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#123

Post by apitman »

ziftface wrote: post #117
apabepa wrote: post #19

I am not a front-end developer but looking at it from a distance I really don't get modern web design. Sure some sites might need fancy javascript single page features, like if your webpage is an interactive map or realtime game, but most sites are just text and some pictures. Whats with all the javascript? Your site looks just like the next one anyway! It feels like an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation or maybe more…

The fact is, the Javascript ecosystem is unmatched when it comes to very quickly creating frontend applications. Maybe another set of tools would have been better, but that doesn't really matter. This set of tools is what everyone uses, and a lot of effort and creativity goes into making js frontend development as smooth and fast as possible. I often need to very quickly make internal services at my job and while I l…

The cost of developing in JS isn't necessarily lower, just amortized. Or in many cases, externalized to your users.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#124

Post by ogre_codes »

lastofthemojito wrote: post #114
ogre_codes wrote: post #10

This is a fantastic article, it does miss one very key point about bog-standard HTML which is worth mentioning though. The standard widgets are all accessible, people with screen readers, limited mobility, poor vision, etc, all rely on pages being written so the devices they use to read the web can function properly. People who choose to eschew these standard components very frequently end up with a site which is unu…

One of the great things about accessibility is that it often doesn't just benefit people with disabilities. My wife and I have watched a lot of TV in the past year with the volume down and captioning on, while we enjoy some down time while our baby is sleeping. A ramped entrance to a building allows wheelchair-bound folks access, but it also helps able-bodied people using delivery dollies. Making simple, lightweight…

Yes, absolutely.

I use closed caption when possible because often I don't quite hear things right and can't make out words. I could turn up the TV, but this means I can enjoy it at the same volume as everyone.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#125

Post by spideymans »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #51
apabepa wrote: post #19

I am not a front-end developer but looking at it from a distance I really don't get modern web design. Sure some sites might need fancy javascript single page features, like if your webpage is an interactive map or realtime game, but most sites are just text and some pictures. Whats with all the javascript? Your site looks just like the next one anyway! It feels like an "Emperor's New Clothes" situation or maybe more…

From what I can tell the short answer is that you're right, there's really no good technical reason for all that weight. Which is to say, it's just bloat. Much has been written on this. Here's an article from 2018. (I realise the irony in that it's hosted on Medium.) https://medium.com/@addyosmani/the-cost-of-javascript-in-201...

The JS performance difference between high and low-end devices is stunning (9s vs 32s load times, based on the Medium article). Web devs, who are often used to using the latest and greatest devices, will have no idea how terrible their code performs on slower devices. And I fear that modern CPUs with excellent JS performance will only exacerbate this issue

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#126

Post by tpxl »

cashewchoo wrote: post #91

As someone who did a lot of desktop application development prior to the web just totally gutting native app development, this is my take: The problem is that people want to make dynamic applications that have a rich UX and deep system integration while being highly portable. Unfortunately, it turns out that "portable" is basically a Great Filter for applications. If you can't run it, you can't use it and the rich UX…

> It's just unfortunate that nobody would be able to use it because nobody downloads programs off random websites anymore

But they do, just in javascript format! I still am bitter such a poor technology won.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#127

Post by codazoda »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #111
codazoda wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very few people have the skill to turn a div into an effective button, yet over and over I see web sites with rows of buttons which are in fact just divs with javascript behind them. I created a minimalist CSS framework called Neat CSS ( https://neat.joeldare.com ). I use anchors instead of buttons and explain why in the quote below. I'd love feedback on the accessibility of that alternative. It's best to use seman…

Conceptually, those are links, not buttons. Buttons are for forms and JavaScript and such.

Fair. I would typically us a form tag with an input tag inside it for forms. Sounds like the button tag can be styled a little more because it allows i, em, br, img, and similar tags inside it, while an input does not. They are interchangable in the case of a form (based on your style need).

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#128

Post by anderspitman »

bachmeier wrote: post #53

Not really the point of the article, but I've been moving to plain HTML for a while now for certain types of personal documents. It's a great feeling to open a file in the browser and know it's going to work. Make a change and all you have to do is refresh the page. Markdown, org-mode, etc. have good intentions, and they work for super simple documents, but in the end the flexibility of html and its closing tags pays…

FWIW, I started going this direction and ended up taking one step back and settling on Markdown. The reason was I realized an HTML renderer is still a pretty heavy dependency to consume my content.

The upshot is you can now browse my blog with curl or netcat:

  curl https://apitman.com/txt/feed

  nc apitman.com 2052
I may switch to another format in the future. It doesn't matter much as long as it's readable as plain text.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#129

Post by ryandrake »

ogre_codes wrote: post #105
K0nserv wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What has happened in that scenario is that the designer has failed in their job. Unfortunately it’s up to engineers to catch this, which they often don’t

Designers don't really know or understand the limits of how you can style a select box. Nor should they need to. A good team will work together around the limits. Also, FWIW some of the problem is with the browser makers (still!!). CSS still has a lot of browser specific quirks when working with some components.

> Designers don't really know or understand the limits of how you can style a select box. Nor should they need to.

Designers absolutely need to be aware of and work within their platform's constraints, like a painter needs to understand and work with the physical characteristics of their canvas. It's this kind of mentality that results in visual specs that read "Make the window look exactly, to the pixel, like this Photoshop image!"

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#130

Post by lastofthemojito »

dmhmr wrote: post #121
lastofthemojito wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the great things about accessibility is that it often doesn't just benefit people with disabilities. My wife and I have watched a lot of TV in the past year with the volume down and captioning on, while we enjoy some down time while our baby is sleeping. A ramped entrance to a building allows wheelchair-bound folks access, but it also helps able-bodied people using delivery dollies. Making simple, lightweight…

I might be misinterpreting your last sentence regarding M1 MacBook Pros. Are you saying they are underpowered for surfing the internet?

The M1 MacBook Pro is at the other end of the spectrum from the outdated/underpowered device that requires a lightweight web page. But the user of such a fast machine still benefits from lightweight web pages (faster loading times, less CPU usage, etc).
Post reply on HN