How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk
How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
1–10 of 45 posts
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#2They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#3They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
It’s not the loading that’s a major problem, it’s the runtime parse cost on low-end Android devices. Everyone has to use government services, so you don’t get to ignore cheap devices.
(Also, luckily the UK government spent zero dollars on fixing this.)
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#4Nice to see transparency in government. Pride in work. Helpful stuff.
Keep it up!
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#5No post body was provided.
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#6They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
It's an accessibility problem. GOV.uk is the official government website that contains key information that must be made available to every UK resident. If shaving off 32K of JavaScript makes the website easier to load for people with extremely bad hardware, then it's worth it.
BTW, the UK doesn't use dollars.
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#7Nice to see transparency in government. Pride in work. Helpful stuff. Keep it up!
GOV.uk is the only part of the UK government that I consistently liked for the past few years.
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#8They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
It's an accessibility problem. GOV.uk is the official government website that contains key information that must be made available to every UK resident. If shaving off 32K of JavaScript makes the website easier to load for people with extremely bad hardware, then it's worth it. BTW, the UK doesn't use dollars.
this is a bit pedantic I think it is okay to say "tax dollars" in general.
I don't think you would generally expect people to say "tax euros" or "tax pounds" or "tax yen"
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#9They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
The literal point of taxes is to to take that money and use it to provide services to the citizenry. So yeah... they did their job.
Re: How and why we removed jQuery from Gov.uk
#10They presume a "problem" is loading 32KB of data and the fix was spending a lot of tax dollars to replace it? Insane.
They do not "presume" anything. They state clearly that the old version of the library was causing performance problems. They also state that 32k is noticeable on slow connections, which it absolutely is. In fact, on unstable connections, it can mean the difference between the site loading and not loading. Reliability is critical for government services. They also mention that the work improved the codebase and the developers' experience with it, which is a criminally underrated means of improving efficiency and therefore reducing cost.
All in all, this sounds like fantastic work relative to what we normally expect from government end user software. We should encourage this kind of thing, not jump to the hand-wavy "my tax dollars!" complaint, which approaches meaninglessness in its commonality.