Someone started with a no-js site index yet?
DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
81–90 of 99 posts
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#82> because of its heavy use of JavaScript
And why does it have to be 'heavy'? Surely adding a few small embellishments with JS is okay, but the JS needn't be heavy at all.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#83I don't get why these would be preferable unless you are an HN elitist that hates javascript for no other reason than it's own sake.
Normal DuckDuckGo loads just as fast for me as the html variant and it doesn't provide location (I had to change it manually), it doesnt have image search, maps, news etc.
I don't understand why anyone would use these version over the normal DDG experience. It's not like the normal DDG is ridicolous amounts of javascript anyway and the normal DDG experience is pretty much just as fast. I cannot really notice any difference anyway.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#84As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…
lite is amazeballs as a command-line utility (leveraging any of several console-mode browsers, including w3m, lynx, links, elinks2, etc.). As a bash (or zsh) function: ddg () { /usr/bin/w3m "https://duckduckgo.com/lite?q=$*&kd=-1" } Note that this enables any bang searches as well, though you'll need to single quote these to avoid attempted history expansion. lite is also my default w3m search bookmark entry. So: ddg…
Have you heard of Julian Assange’s surfraw?
$ alias d='sr duckduckgo -text -ducky'
$ d '!man surfraw'
[www-browser opens http://manpages.org/surfraw]
[…]
DESCRIPTION
Surfraw provides a fast unix command line interface to a variety of popular WWW search engines and other artifacts of power. It reclaims google, altavista, dejanews, freshmeat, research index, slashdot and many others from the false-prophet, pox-infested heathen lands of html-forms, placing these wonders where they belong, deep in unix heartland, as god loving extensions to the shell.
[…]
$ dict foo # same text as !dict’s http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=fooRe: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
740ms for a new search without local caching and for a query that was probably not searched for. Not amazing, but a lot faster than your result. rightdao is 755ms, no real difference I’d say.
Rightdao is about 70ms for me, could be they are in bay area and not world-wide. Impressive nevertheless, nothing on the web loads in 70ms for me. That is 10x faster than DuckDuckGo Lite.
If you're getting the results you need at that speed - great! Else, the speed doesn't matter.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#86As someone who's just written about the "small web" [1], this warms my heart. The lite version is probably a little too bare-bones for most people's tastes, but it sure is tiny -- great for people on very slow or flakey connections. Some numbers: HTML homepage transfers 34KB (94KB uncompressed) over 6 requests. HTML search results page transfers 133KB (248KB uncompressed) over 31 requests. Lite homepage transfers 13K…
The lite version has a broken image at the bottom. Other than that it is very nostalgic of Alta Vista home page back in the days. Kudos to DDG for having such simple non-javascript version. In current days, non-javascript web page is on the rise. All web pages should have a non-javascript lite weight version.
> All web pages should have a non-javascript lite weight version.
Couldn't it be the exact same page, that still works when javascript is disabled?
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#87Maybe for people who disabled JavaScript, DDG should present in the search results only sites that functions without JavaScript. What’s the point otherwise?
Is there any easy way to determine that? I’m not aware of one. The presence of JavaScript is not always enough to determine that the page is not usable without JavaScript.
You could check to see if there is content on the raw received HTML as well as indexing the content after evaluating JavaScript. If the page pre-JS page has content you mark it as no-JS friendly and if it only gets content after running JS then you mark it as JS-required.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#88> because of its heavy use of JavaScript And why does it have to be 'heavy'? Surely adding a few small embellishments with JS is okay, but the JS needn't be heavy at all.
> needn't be heavy at all
The words I'd pick are 'careless' or 'sloppy' or 'laughable' use of javascript. The speed of carefully-crafted JS in today's browsers is amazing. If the mule collapses hauling that 20-ton-wagon of borax, there's the culprit.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#89Lite version is minimalism at its best!
In general, are there tutorials or guidelines on how to strip away unnecessary JS components? As in how do I query which component is unused from the source code of a website? I suspect I will have to play with Console of a browser etc.
Re: DuckDuckGo – two non-JavaScript versions of search results
#90While duckduckgo.com is using the standard HTML5 doctype, html.duckduckgo.com is using