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

381–387 of 387 posts

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#381

Post by brigandish »

SulfurHexaFluri wrote: post #191
ratww wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone involved in hiring, this is what Bootcamps and Universities are teaching, and what companies are looking for: backend spits JSON, frontend consumes it using React. Rendering HTML on the server is not really "the default" anymore as it was 10 year ago: it's more of an optimization for when your React site is slow, and it's a black box to most people. Even static websites are "strange tech" to new graduates…

>The issue is that a lot of developers will want to use React for everything else on the page, because they think it's "icky" to use other kinds of tech in other parts of the website. It is though. I work on an app thats 80% react and 20% rails SSR and when working on anything, seeing that an area that needs change is written with SSR makes the job 10x harder as you have to come up with alternative methods to get it…

> seeing that an area that needs change is written with SSR makes the job 10x harder as you have to come up with alternative methods to get it working or just rewrite it in react

Without details it's hard to know what you mean. Do you have an example?

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#382

Post by zzo38computer »

ogre_codes wrote: post #124
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…

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.

I also use captions (even when the TV isn't muted). If someone else in the room is speaking so something on the TV is missed, it will be shown on the captions. Sometimes there might be some word or name I don't know and will want to look it up, and the caption will have the spelling (if the caption writer has spelled it correctly, which sometimes they don't, unfortunately). It could also be used for transcripts and caption scrollback, if those features were implemented, although unfortunately it isn't.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#383

Post by mtrower »

dgb23 wrote: post #93
lovelyviking wrote: post #73

Those are not ‘crappy browsers’. If we call it “Browser” it should be browser, isn’t it? It should brows pages. It was never intended to be overweighted virtal machine and not a good one by the way. Past 8 years or so Youtube has nothing really more to offer then it was offering back then. The only new things it offers for me is overweighted dumb slow shit that fails to perform what it was perfectly doing 8 years ago…

> It was never intended to be overweighted virtal machine and not a good one by the way. Citation needed. It's been two and a half decades since people started using the web as more than just a delivery mechanism for text and images.

longstanding use != intended use

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#384

Post by mtrower »

dvdkon wrote: post #309
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I actually don't think websites have much of a problem with this. I generally keep my browser around 1,000 pixels wide (more or less depending on what I"m doing), and websites generally work fine. Responsive design helps a lot, as you say. What surprises me is how many users seem to keep their browsers maximized at all times, particularly on desktop-sized displays! I'm pretty sure I see people doing it more on Wi…

Interesting. A number of websites don't display correctly for me if I use just half of my 1920 horizontal pixels. Keep in mind that many users still use 1366x768 or similar screens. As for maximising, Mac OS X never had a conventional one-click maximise button, the green button originally did something like resize the window to an optimal size (IIRC), and now it makes the app fullscreen on a separate "virtual desktop…

> the green button originally did something like resize the window to an optimal size (IIRC)

Indeed, it's called "zoom". Fabulous when it works correctly, and one of my favorite features. You can still get at it with Option-Click (on the green), when the application supports it (not all do). Double-click on titlebar might also work, but I can't really check atm.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#385

Post by mtrower »

kstrauser wrote: post #356
sundarurfriend wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eh, 98.24% of all users worldwide can use TLS 1.2: https://caniuse.com/?search=tls%201.2 That's 98.24% of users captured by CanIUse's sources (which seems to be StatCounter). Like most things on the Internet, that's a bubble - the bubble of users who visit statcounter-infested websites, and are able to run their scripts. And the point of the original post is to think outside the bubble. Not in all cases - if you're…

That's a tough one, because the examples you gave are exactly the ones that I don't want a shady ISP or other interested party to my snooping. I'm not unsympathetic, and genuinely feel bad for the people stuck with truly ancient systems. But at some point, you have to do the analysis of whether it's better to 1) give secure communication to everyone who can have it, or 2) retain insecure communications to support an…

> That's a tough one, because the examples you gave are exactly the ones that I don't want a shady ISP or other interested party to my snooping.

This sounds like a personal consideration - one you're entitled to, but perhaps shouldn't force on others. Maybe consider Tor?

> ever-shrinking pool of people who can't/won't upgrade.

Are you sure about this? The kind of security you're advocating for here is a moving target. As the pool shrinks on the tail end, surely the head advances...

> Well, now it's broken. Fix it.

Erm, no. The device isn't broken, you are willfully breaking it. I can appreciate your stance, but glib comments like this aren't going to convince anyone in that camp.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#386

Post by mtrower »

perl4ever wrote: post #234
iso1631 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so many things are designed and tested by people on T1 broadband in a downtown office I wish. A T1 is 1.5mbit. CNN's front page is 6MB - 30 seconds at full T1 bandwidth.

I can't remember exactly how much it was, but within the last year, I ran out of cellular data and my "unlimited" plan dropped back to a lesser amount of bandwidth, but still what used to be broadband. However, I literally could not load any website I tried. However much it was, it was way more than dialup. It seemed to me like there was no point in a soft cap, if one can't even load the website to change plans.

I would hazard a guess that it was 2G. And yes, it's absolutely infuriating that so many basic services (which used to be implemented just fine on 2G speeds (or less!)) no longer remotely function without LTE.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#387

Post by mtrower »

antihero wrote: post #307
zelphirkalt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an exclusionary mindset. Just because it is a tiny subset of users, it is OK to exclude them? How about when it is quite easy in many cases to support them, by using standard conform simple HTML? Example: How many login forms have I seen, which will not show their input fields, if I do not allow their shitty scripts to run? In fact, just today I have seen it, on a VPN login, on a thing, that is suppos…

I think reaching for JS is often a reflex because we want to avoid delving into building backends that aren't a simple REST API. If you stick to HTML and CSS you need to start building pages and managing state server-side, which a lot of people don't really want to do. Even cheap, old smartphones support JS. You can have fast, efficient JS.

> You can have fast, efficient JS.

You know... this is true. I know this is true, because we had JS 20+ years ago on Pentium processors. It's possible to write JS that doesn't require multiple cores on a 2019 Ryzen...

But there are also the other sort of sites. You know the ones. Take a stab at which is more prevalent, and receives the majority of ire =[

Post reply on HN