So, progressive enhancement?
The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
161–170 of 387 posts
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#162I 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 two biggest rants on HN are 1) Why doesn't this site work without JavaScript? It's inaccessible. and 2) Why doesn't this app work offline? It invades my privacy.
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, you can't have both. Sorry folks.
You are right, JS is not needed if the site truly is static content. But if you try to make an interactive app that could be implemented client-side (AKA javascript) and attach a server to it, everybody will complain that the application doesn't respect the user's privacy, since it could be offline-only but it's not.
Don't get me wrong, I think "interactive" can meaningfully include a simple site with links if you are looking at it from a privacy angle. Just look at how StackOverflow recently was able to track all the pages their hacker viewed. [1] SO is pretty much static content. So do you want StackOverflow to work without JavaScript? Are you happy that in-so-doing it needs to phone home whenever you look something up? You can't have one without the other.
There is also the argument from scalability. You'll get less QPS on your servers if you implement a 3-step form with validation in the frontend, and send off all the data in one go. It's also faster/better UX and is more resilient under bad network conditions.
Edge computing is maybe an alternative there, but that doesn't address inherent privacy concerns of phoning home to a server.
Last there is the reality of a spectrum of interactivity of websites. If you are doing a blog, sure, don't do it in JS. At that point you make a decision to make it difficult to add any interactive features to you site which require JS. If you are building an evolving app with interactive features, there aren't many options for easily mixing static HTML with interactive JS. You could see how far you get with static HTML but then what if you need interactivity (JS/JQuery)? What if you need complex interactivity (React)? Are you willing to pay the costs of a heterogeneous app architecture of HTML mixed with interactive JS?
Think of Facebook. It is kinda like a blog, but what about infinite scroll? Etc.
Anyway that last point, I think, is why people are excited about 37signals' Hotwire[2]. It's more of a HTML-but-interactive architecture as opposed to the fully-interactive JS/React vs static HTML forms.
[1]: https://stackoverflow.blog/2021/01/25/a-deeper-dive-into-our... [2]: https://hotwire.dev/
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#163The simple HTML of Hacker News is one of the reasons I love it so much. What a breath of fresh hair compared to modern Reddit.
Yeah. tags for presentation (with no `alt` attr).
Form s without s.
No skip link, no landmark regions.
s with s inside for non-tabular content.
tags. FONT TAGS.
"A breath of fresh hair" is a typo that accidentally makes a good comparison.
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#164This 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…
> 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. You can add role="button" and a modern browser will treat it just like a normal button and all the accessibility that comes with it.
its about simple html and older devices, so just plain button will do the job.
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#165This 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…
> 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. You can add role="button" and a modern browser will treat it just like a normal button and all the accessibility that comes with it.
I wish this would be the case. The button will not be focusable, so we need to add tabindex="0". A disabled div with role="button" is not handled as disabled, so we need to take care of that. Keyboard space/enter will not be triggered on "click" event, unlike real buttons, hence excluding keyboard users. You can check my playground [1] - I'm using it to demo why one should prefer native over custom components.
[1] https://darekkay.github.io/presentations/accessible-web/reso...
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#166The 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…
The implicit premise here is that your website requires HTTPS only and that a theoretical downgrade attack is enough to justify not having http at all.
Most websites don't even need HTTPS and the complications and sacrifice of autonomy required isn't worth it. Remember, there are no cert authorities that are human people. They are all corporations or institutions. Having to get an incorporated entity's permission to communicate will have dangerous consequences eventually. HTTPS everywhere is done with the best of intentions but it will be the centralizing push that provides juicy targets for government and corporate censorship.
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking a quick look at the site, Beyoncé has a store page on it, which would be sufficient to classify it.
With regards to the ADA, commerce means more than just "Selling stuff" so I'd be careful making assumptions about that.
Selling stuff is probably sufficient but not necessary to qualify as commerce.
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#168I,ve been working on a hyper-compatible web forum system. With some tweaking, I,ve been able to achieve compatibility with Netscape 2.x, IE 3.x, Mosaic 1.x, Opera 3.x, and everything since then, not to mention Lynx, Links, w3m, etc. I still have some advanced JS stuff, but it,s behind feature checks. 25+ years of various client compatibility, for people with older devices and retro fans. Amazing tech we should not th…
Pity that you must expose everyone’s passwords in plain text to achieve this (those older browsers won’t support TLS).
Not every website requires passwords or any other secrets to be transmitted. I use a combination of fingerprinting and WoT to allow (but not require) anyone to maintain an identity without having to register or sign in.
Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that bettermotherfuckingwebsite is worse in almost all ways. I wonder if that was what the author was going for. I don't know what's truly satire anymore!
> worse in almost all ways How so? I dislike the text color choice, but other than that it seems perfectly fine to me.
>font-size:18px
This shit is never fine.