Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#131

Post by cookiengineer » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:38 PM UTC

I recently started to fork webkit to make it a Webview with a reduced attack surface. [2]

The most interesting part was the Quirks.cpp file [1] that contains literally randomized css classnames inside the web browser code because a major website was so shitty and spec violating in their implementations.

I mean, fixing a website in a browser source code...this shit got out of hand real quick yo.

The problem with all those drafts is that Google keeps doing their own thing, and others are forced to try to catch-up or implement the same bugs/quirks that chromium does. Everything is rushed so QUICly that even Microsoft gave up at some point. And at some point in the past google realized that they can own the web if they own the Browser. And that's what they effectively do now, because the competition isn't really a competition at all anymore.

[1] https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/main/Source/WebCore/pa...

[2] https://github.com/tholian-network/retrokit

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#132

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

timeon wrote: post #85

scelerat wrote: post #7

It's been thus, nigh on two decades now. Product Designer: "No system controls; we want our users to have the Full Brand Experience, therefore, custom controls." Also Product Designer: "Why don't our custom controls work as well as system controls?"

"a good rule of thumb to follow when designing your own controls: Don't." -- https://web.archive.org/web/20021009021738/http://www.iarchi...

Now those are controls I haven't seen in a long time. Long time.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#133

Post by alpaca128 » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

idrios wrote: post #107

root_axis wrote: post #79

This blog loads 2mb of scripts, and if you disable JS you can't leave a comment or even read any comments. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I'd have expected a blog hosting an anti-js essay to be less dependent on JS. The author notes in the noscript block that using disqus is part of hosting a static blog, but that definition of "static" is an implementation detail - i.e. a convenience for the devel…

2mb of scripts actually seems impressively small. I'd say kudos to the author for practicing what she preaches.

This site here seems to have roughly 8kB of scripts, about 250kB for everything.

I'd say that's more impressive than loading the counterpart of multiple novels for mostly the same functionality.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#134

Post by kolinko » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #79

This blog loads 2mb of scripts, and if you disable JS you can't leave a comment or even read any comments. Personally, I don't have a problem with this, but I'd have expected a blog hosting an anti-js essay to be less dependent on JS. The author notes in the noscript block that using disqus is part of hosting a static blog, but that definition of "static" is an implementation detail - i.e. a convenience for the devel…

The comments on the blog are managed by Disqus. If he wanted to do them without JS, he'd need to build a commenting system all by himself - and that's almost impossible nowadays because of the spam issues.

Everything else on the site seems to uphold to his principles.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#135

Post by Shacklz » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #112

mattmanser wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the parent are totally missing the point. Use the system tools. But make the look of the system tools customizable. System tool. Customizable look. That's what should be available. But even today you can't consistently change something as simple as a scroll bar or a checkbox. Which, even worse, are by default styled differently on different browsers.

Customizable look and feel means lack of consistency, and confusion as to why things look different without good reason.

This purist talk about how everyone should stick to some system standard or whatever really needs to die. It's not working. Nobody is doing it.

Everyone, literally everyone is running their own thing. Name me big company that doesn't roll their own design system.

Preaching purism really doesn't help anyone, let's just accept reality as it is, and stop chasing some utopian dreams that just won't ever materialize (and if only because it would make a lot of jobs and professions useless, overnight, and there's too much inertia for that to happen).

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#136

Post by goatlover » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #52

coffeefirst wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it’s because it’s stupid difficult to replicate the native functionality exactly, retain accessibility traits, and if you get it perfect, then you have to deal with the fact that different browsers and devices interpret these controls totally differently.

We’re saying the same thing. The web right now today requires that you reimplement all that functionality from scratch when it should be just inheriting all the behavior from the native control in your custom thing and tweaking the styles or adding some additional functionality.

This. You should be able to subclass the DOM creation functions to specify your customized version, and have it spit out the custom tag for it.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#137

Post by goatlover » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:03 PM UTC

vbo wrote: post #32

eitland wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but JS improves the user experience a lot, both in terms of interaction and speed, Except for autocomplete, do you have any examples where user experience is increased a lot?

Since you mention autocomplete, dealing with forms is a lot better from both a development perspective and UX, ie complex forms being validated client side (as well as server side, of course) and getting instant feedback. Modals. Having slower things being loaded after the intial page load resulting in the page loading faster (moreso with session info being loaded less often in SPAs). Infinite scroll for search pages…

I mostly dislike infinite scroll and am irritated when I see visual things load after the page loads. I also don’t see the point in SPAs for regular websites. The modern web looks better, but sometimes the experience is worse, at least for those of us who were around before. Of course by this I don’t mean actual applications or games on the web. Just standard websites.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#138

Post by goatlover » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

Devasta wrote: post #124

No one asks if Excel or Hearthstone or Git or other desktop applications have progressive enhancement, it's unfortunate but these days no one should be asking it about web pages either. The web is an application platform, it stopped being about documents years ago. Whatever you may feel about Xforms, its spec was published nearly 20 years ago and even now HTML forms still cannot do something as basic as a PUT request…

Weird, because I still look at plenty of regular websites that aren’t applications. And reading on the web is much better than a PDF.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#139

Post by levmiseri » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #112

mattmanser wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and the parent are totally missing the point. Use the system tools. But make the look of the system tools customizable. System tool. Customizable look. That's what should be available. But even today you can't consistently change something as simple as a scroll bar or a checkbox. Which, even worse, are by default styled differently on different browsers.

Customizable look and feel means lack of consistency, and confusion as to why things look different without good reason.

Consistency is overrated. Context is what matters. And context often requires customized controls.

We will never live in a world where an abstract concept like a checkbox can have an 'assigned' specific visual affordance that doesn't allow for adjustments. Such thinking is stuck in the past and won't allow for new/better UI paradigms.

Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)

#140

Post by johnisgood » Mon, Dec 27, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

alpaca128 wrote: post #133

idrios wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2mb of scripts actually seems impressively small. I'd say kudos to the author for practicing what she preaches.

This site here seems to have roughly 8kB of scripts, about 250kB for everything. I'd say that's more impressive than loading the counterpart of multiple novels for mostly the same functionality.

Both websites could easily be done without JavaScript. I have built a blog and a site similar (without voting) to this using PHP/HTML/CSS when I was young.