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

71–80 of 387 posts

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#71

Post by theandrewbailey »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

Client-side javascript is underrated. We put simple websites in embedded devices with shockingly low memory/flash. They're for configuring the device. The pages are pretty serviceable with html controls, color schemes, logo etc. Embedded javascript to make them responsive. A couple of kilobytes total html.

> Embedded javascript to make them responsive.

We must have different definitions of 'responsive'. You don't need javascript to make a website look different due to different screen sizes.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#72

Post by forgotmypw17 »

salutonmundo wrote: post #63

The 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.

This, a thousand times. No one is going to mitm someone browsing my text blog. On the other hand, https creates many barriers to access, including recent version requirement, time sync, and extra cpu and bandwidth.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#73

Post by lovelyviking »

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, and all those slowness added for no particular reason that I could appreciate.

All of this ‘comfort’ is getting on the way or doesn’t work at all. Perfectly capable IPad Pro now is struggling to load even Youtube.

Almost every site I visit is bloated with idiotic unnecessary things that do not not even work properly.

And once you see some new idiocy appearing on some big site, the first thing you think is :‘oh no’ because you can be pretty sure that every “designer” would copy this bullshit and it will appear on every site very soon for no reason. If that is not a dumb design by definition then what is? I would not call it even design. Those are layers and layers of garbage piled on top of each other and at this point when I see simple HTML I just wish to thank the author for lack of so called “design”.

It’s not crappy browsers - It’s crappy sites overloaded with useless features. I didn’t see One big site lately that did become better ... not one! I wish to see one, show me one please. I wish to be mistaken there but I think it simply doesn’t exist.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#74

Post by forgotmypw17 »

bachmeier wrote: post #53

Not really the point of the article, but I've been moving to plain HTML for a while now for certain types of personal documents. It's a great feeling to open a file in the browser and know it's going to work. Make a change and all you have to do is refresh the page. Markdown, org-mode, etc. have good intentions, and they work for super simple documents, but in the end the flexibility of html and its closing tags pays…

Amen. Markdown does unexpected things so often, and then I struggle with how to escape it.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#75

Post by forgotmypw17 »

mattl wrote: post #3
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

Client-side javascript is underrated. We put simple websites in embedded devices with shockingly low memory/flash. They're for configuring the device. The pages are pretty serviceable with html controls, color schemes, logo etc. Embedded javascript to make them responsive. A couple of kilobytes total html.

And what if the device can't or won't run JavaScript?

My several years iPad with iOS 9, an otherwise capable device, locks up regularly on many js sites. JS is a global toggle which takes 30 seconds to switch.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#76

Post by grishka »

kodt wrote: post #56
elliekelly wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What was the catalyst behind this trend? I just don’t understand the reason behind it. Hasn’t been around forever? Was there some limitation on the button tag that made the div tag more desirable?

Perhaps because buttons have some default styles attached and people just decided to use a div.

That's what a CSS reset is for.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#77

Post by smlckz »

iso1631 wrote: post #42
another-dave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the problem is that niche though. Even outside of accessibility concerns, there are plenty of times I've tried to use websites on smartphones within intermittent internet access — e.g. on the London underground checking in to a flight on the way to the airport or ordering a pizza when coming home late from work. In both scenarios, I'm trying to complete my task as quickly as possible while I still have…

> 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.

Maybe try https://lite.cnn.io.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#78

Post by forgotmypw17 »

tshaddox wrote: post #17
mattl wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if the device can't or won't run JavaScript?

What if a device doesn't have a web browser? Or a display? Or a network connection? At some point you have to make some basic assumptions about the platform you're targeting.

At some point it,s time to give up. But before I do, I will bend over backwards twice to try to accomodate the user. Maybe it,s because of all those times some arrogant asshole website told me my browser isn,t goos enough.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#79

Post by dekhn »

My undergraduate thesis has been hosted by my undergrad institution, UCSC, https://compbio.soe.ucsc.edu/papers/thesis_rafael/thesis.htm... for 26 years.

It was rendered using Latex2HTML. The "next page" images don't work since they were links to a website that doesn't serve those assets any more, but the thesis is still completely readable.

Re: The unreasonable effectiveness of simple HTML

#80

Post by jcranmer »

cptskippy wrote: post #41
jcranmer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not selling anything, then you're not engaged in commerce and you wouldn't qualify as a "public accommodation" and the law doesn't kick in for you. (Complete list of public accommodation is 24 USC §12181(7)-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181 ).

Non-profits don't necessarily sell anything but they've been sued by the ADA for violating the laws on accessibility.

"Sell anything" is probably a bit too restrictive, but summarizing case law on what counts as "affecting commerce" is difficult. In general, you need something that looks like a service or good being provided (even if no money is actually paid for it). Something like Youtube would absolutely fall under the ADA--it's clearly analogous to a movie theater.
Post reply on HN