Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about rich text editors in webmail?
HTML mail is a mess that's impossible to get right; better to avoid it. Misleading users with a rich-text editor that looks like a word processor is bad because it'll pretty much never look as intended in anything but the same HTML editor that created it originally.
Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
231–237 of 237 posts
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just hold the comments for moderation?
Any time I tried doing that, 99.9% of comments were spam. Seriously.
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
She
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just hold the comments for moderation?
You’d spend more time moderating comments than writing posts. Seriously. Any time I tried doing that, 99.9% of comments were spam. Seriously.
[ ] i am not a robot
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#235I am not sure what Javascript buys you, but from a point of view of doing a server-side app and having to do the frontend... uh, it adds a lot of complexity. I am taking a look into htmx. It looks way closer to what html is and it is more than enough for my purpose at least.
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#236I am not sure what Javascript buys you, but from a point of view of doing a server-side app and having to do the frontend... uh, it adds a lot of complexity. I am taking a look into htmx. It looks way closer to what html is and it is more than enough for my purpose at least.
> I am not sure what Javascript buys you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
Re: Maybe we could tone down the JavaScript (2016)
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The problem are most other sites that often don't even load or show any content without JS support, or break in many creative ways. Although for weirdness you only need to disable custom fonts in the browser, and suddenly Reddit's notification button shows the Paypal logo and many websites have random chinese symbols scattered around the UI. And Google Translate looks like you need a translator to use it.