41–50 of 59 posts
Great opportunity to strip out unnecessary uses of jQuery, and move to vanilla javascript. http://youmightnotneedjquery.com/
I haven't used jquery in about 2 years, pure javascript and maybe some lodash functions imported into my es6. Give it a try, you might not need it!
This is why you self-host all project dependencies.
But that costs you cache hits, increases the real world size of your site, and slows loading. I'm sure mobile users with metered internet would prefer you didn't download that 100 KB JavaScript library for the nth time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the fallback mechanism is progressive enhancement. It’s a reliability mechanism more than anything - if JS (or part of the JS) fails to load the site should fall back to a version that potentially reduces the interactivity but allows essential functions to continue.
Progressive enhancement is largely a myth. A lot of libraries, JQuery, Lodash, Angular, Vue, React, Bootstrap's JS, module loaders, etc aren't simply offering "improved interactivity" they're offering core functionality. In essence the site runs on these libraries, if you remove them there's nothing left to regress too. I've worked in several companies and never seen progressive enhancement used. It might have made s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the fallback mechanism is progressive enhancement. It’s a reliability mechanism more than anything - if JS (or part of the JS) fails to load the site should fall back to a version that potentially reduces the interactivity but allows essential functions to continue.
Progressive enhancement is largely a myth. A lot of libraries, JQuery, Lodash, Angular, Vue, React, Bootstrap's JS, module loaders, etc aren't simply offering "improved interactivity" they're offering core functionality. In essence the site runs on these libraries, if you remove them there's nothing left to regress too. I've worked in several companies and never seen progressive enhancement used. It might have made s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Progressive enhancement is largely a myth. A lot of libraries, JQuery, Lodash, Angular, Vue, React, Bootstrap's JS, module loaders, etc aren't simply offering "improved interactivity" they're offering core functionality. In essence the site runs on these libraries, if you remove them there's nothing left to regress too. I've worked in several companies and never seen progressive enhancement used. It might have made s…
You in Australia? We built 9now.com.au using a degree of ‘progressive enhancement’ thanks to server-side react. I left a while ago, but Normally, users get a single-page-app-like complete with prefetching to instantly display subsequent pages. Turn JS off and it ‘degrades’ into a typical server-rendered experience. Sure, get far enough in and some things will break (videos won’t play), but we were pretty happy about…
You gave two examples, one of which didn't even work correctly when regressed ("videos won’t play") and the other is effectively a toy site (login/terms of service portal).
When you're in the weeds developing complex data entry sites for large companies or government, you aren't going to write the page three times progressively, write three sets of tests, run userability & accessibility studies three times, and maintain all three for tens of years with bug fixes/enhancement.
What you're going to do is lock in your library requirements, and if the library failed to load you're just going to fast fail into a generic error message until the library is available. If for no other reason that it isn't financially feasible to do anything else.
Progressive enhancement of JavaScript libraries was dead the second we went to SPAs and had a library hold the page's data context/scope instead of writing web pages using HTML forms and refreshing every time you click.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Progressive enhancement is largely a myth. A lot of libraries, JQuery, Lodash, Angular, Vue, React, Bootstrap's JS, module loaders, etc aren't simply offering "improved interactivity" they're offering core functionality. In essence the site runs on these libraries, if you remove them there's nothing left to regress too. I've worked in several companies and never seen progressive enhancement used. It might have made s…
I didn't know the term was progressive enhancement, but if it is what I think it is, it's a great thing to aim for. Sometimes users (probably more on HN) like to browse without js enabled, and some people also need websites that are accessible in a more basic environment, whether it be for screen reader, console web browser, archive.org, or simply older browser. Worse case scenario if the JS breaks and throws and err…
As to users choosing to run without JavaScript? We simply don't support it. We support IE8 and above. You cannot even get to our site using Windows XP due to errors in the TLS negotiation (to avoid SSL downgrade). If users choose to disable a core part of their browser that happens to be a core part of modern web standards, then they shouldn't be surprised when sites using that part no longer work.
This is why you self-host all project dependencies.
But that costs you cache hits, increases the real world size of your site, and slows loading. I'm sure mobile users with metered internet would prefer you didn't download that 100 KB JavaScript library for the nth time.
Many times the 100KB of JavaScript is faster to load when minified and combined with other site code and served compressed over a single HTTP request or streamed via HTTP/2. It's almost always faster to use an existing connection than to start a new one.
Also there isn't one canonical version of jQuery. There's dozens of potential versions available[1]. So it's not immediately clear that a user will have the version a site depends on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, the fallback mechanism is progressive enhancement. It’s a reliability mechanism more than anything - if JS (or part of the JS) fails to load the site should fall back to a version that potentially reduces the interactivity but allows essential functions to continue.
Progressive enhancement is largely a myth. A lot of libraries, JQuery, Lodash, Angular, Vue, React, Bootstrap's JS, module loaders, etc aren't simply offering "improved interactivity" they're offering core functionality. In essence the site runs on these libraries, if you remove them there's nothing left to regress too. I've worked in several companies and never seen progressive enhancement used. It might have made s…
There are apps using browser as execution environment and there are websites. You wouldn't expect a client-side drawing tool, WebVR game or real time visualization of blockchain transactions to work without JS enabled.
However, you can easily expect a social network, mail client, news page, task app, and to some extent even things like IM to work with no JavaScript. "That's core" is just an excuse for poor architecture - it's only core because you chose to make it so.
There are apps and there are websites, with only some small part of grey area in between. If you're a web developer wanting to use newest, greatest trendy tools, you see everything as apps, despite of common sense suggesting otherwise, and you end up with no progressive enhancement for no good reason. When you take it to extremes, you end up creating such abominations like the old SPA Twitter frontend, spinning the fans of your laptop for 15 seconds just to display 140 characters of text, because "the core" is implemented as AJAX calls and fully rendered client-side.
It's not an expiry. It's a cert name mismatch. CN is *.ssl.hwcdn.net
My guess is they decided to switch to Highwinds as their CDN (don't know what it was before) and they didn't plan it correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nowadays, with all the Node.js stuff that goes around modern front-end, I don't see the point of embedding a JavaScript library from a CDN, unless that library is dependent on a remote service, e.g. Google Analytics, Google Maps, etc… That being said, if you are still maintaining a legacy website that depends on jQuery, you should consider to embed the library like this instead: What does Node.js have to do with de…
I assume he's talking about NPM. Now that everybody's hot new SPA has a few hundred thousand NPM dependencies, you roll it all up using Webpack and can just as easily `npm install jquery` as ` `.