181–190 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. Didn't even knew that exists. Awesome.
Same here and it seems fucking amazing. I'm beginning to wonder how many more html-things like this I don't know about?
What are the performance implications of using CSS animations versus Javascript? Say, if you were trying to make an application where page animations need to be extremely fast, like under 2ms for an experiment or test.
I had always assumed that CSS is faster, till I read your question. A quick search gave me this interesting link - https://css-tricks.com/myth-busting-css-animations-vs-javasc... - check it out!
You might not, but you probably do. The validation examples and input types are a case in point. Even on browsers where they work, the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled.
The form element type is perfectly enough for frontend validation. You should do the rest on the backend anyway.
> You should do the rest on the backend anyway
Well yes, you should validate on the backend, but you shouldn't wait to only validate on the backend.
This works well enough for getting things done quickly, but it's hardly a good UX, and a far cry from "perfect enough," whatever that means.
You might not, but you probably do. The validation examples and input types are a case in point. Even on browsers where they work, the alerts can't be styled and the behaviors can't be controlled.
I think a more important point is that you should design your website to still be functional even if Javascript is disabled. Why? Because some users, such as those who use Tor, may have legitimate reasons to disable Javascript execution while browsing. Another reason is that Javascript-generated content can screw up your website's SEO when crawlers visit your site. Using Javascript for your form validation is okay if…
> Where JS becomes a problem is when it's used in ways where disabling it completely breaks the page... Single page web apps: I'm looking at you.
Here's my point: if you disable Javascript and navigate to a URL where a single-page app is hosted, the page isn't broken, your execution environment is. If I make a React app, then ipso facto I'm making an explicit choice to exclude folks that don't want to enable Javascript.
HOWEVER
> I think a more important point is that you should design your website to still be functional even if Javascript is disabled.
There's absolutely room on the Web for all three models: document, interface, and application. And despite my disagreement with this point when it comes to client-side applications, I definitely agree when it comes to Web documents and Web interfaces to server-side applications. (Rails muddied the water something fierce on that last one, which has been the source of uncountable headaches for me.)
So let's show off what you can do without JavaScript...but also include SCSS as a dependency when the opening paragraph complains about a JavaScript dependency? Madness...but I digress. Some of these are cool examples. Others, like the modal, won't scale very well because now you can trigger modals by tabbing (breaks keyboard navigation) or most of the form examples as you'll likely hit many endpoints that require JS…
All you need is this motherfucking website: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One is a server-side depencency and one is a client-side dependency. Don't conflate them.
I never did conflate them. I've worked in this industry for 12 years now. I really don't get the disconnect here. I called it a dependency because it is and everyone is trying to tell me it's a different type of dependency. Well no shit but that was never my point to begin with. My point was hijacked and contorted here.