This post lines up with a lot of my thoughts about the awfulness of the "modern web". There are a few other articles on similar topics that I linked to from the "Keep the site lightweight" section...
This post lines up with a lot of my thoughts about the awfulness of the "modern web". There are a few other articles on similar topics that I linked to from the "Keep the site lightweight" section of the Tildes technical goals doc.
Deimos, you are a god among web developers. I didn't know what it was like to love the design of a forum until I was invited here. I'm absolutely astounded by its unwavering usability on both...
Deimos, you are a god among web developers. I didn't know what it was like to love the design of a forum until I was invited here. I'm absolutely astounded by its unwavering usability on both desktop and mobile, with or without JavaScript. Thank you for everything, and keep up the hard work!
On the subject of common bullshit in the modern web, I hate single-page applications, especially ones that hijack page reload shortcuts to perform some kind of "pseudo-refresh". They're typically...
On the subject of common bullshit in the modern web, I hate single-page applications, especially ones that hijack page reload shortcuts to perform some kind of "pseudo-refresh". They're typically over-engineered, bloated, buggy pieces of garbage, and yet they're the popular way to do things now. And, of course, larger companies up the bloat quite a bit more by integrating all kinds of behavioral tracking features so they can mine as much advertising data as possible.
My main issue with single page sites is that I can't open up multiple links in new tabs all at once without doing something stupid like clicking one and then opening a new tab with my browser's...
My main issue with single page sites is that I can't open up multiple links in new tabs all at once without doing something stupid like clicking one and then opening a new tab with my browser's back button for each link.
The sad thing is that when AJAX got popular, the whole idea was that it was supposed to make websites perform faster since there were fewer page updates. Then designers got a hold of those tools...
The sad thing is that when AJAX got popular, the whole idea was that it was supposed to make websites perform faster since there were fewer page updates.
Then designers got a hold of those tools and said "forget speed, I want to force everyone to watch a stupid animation every time they scroll up or down."
And my search to find out how to strangle someone over the internet continues.
In reality this is not within the remit of a web developer's job. Virtually no project manager cares about page weight because the vast majority of customers don't (as far as management can tell,...
Better choices should be made by web developers to not ship this bullshit in the first place.
In reality this is not within the remit of a web developer's job. Virtually no project manager cares about page weight because the vast majority of customers don't (as far as management can tell, anyway), and as such there's no business incentive for this to change.
I tend to agree. While I fully agree with the author, it seems they miss why these companies do these things. Yes, everyone hates autoplaying videos, but not enough to impact viewership, while...
This is targeted at the wrong people.
I tend to agree. While I fully agree with the author, it seems they miss why these companies do these things. Yes, everyone hates autoplaying videos, but not enough to impact viewership, while simultaneously providing a very lucrative ad space. Yes, people hate newsletters and their popups, but the extra engagement they get from the few people who do sign up is enough to outweigh how annoying it is to others. Yes, the consumer would probably want the page to load a second faster, but in exchange the tracking beacons provide them additional data about their demographics, which is apparently really valuable to them.
The majority of these things aren't due to lazy developers using bloated frameworks, but rather, conscious marketing decisions following cargo-cult advertising techniques, which if you ask the marketing people, actually work well enough to offset any lost viewership.
I would say, yes, it is even worth talking about. Recognizing a problem is worth our time, even if its to sit around this digital campfire and bitch about our bullshit IT jobs with one another. I...
I would say, yes, it is even worth talking about. Recognizing a problem is worth our time, even if its to sit around this digital campfire and bitch about our bullshit IT jobs with one another. I know it seems pretty obvious to us, but there is a generation of people who think this web is NORMAL, and to declare that its not, helps change a persons paradigm. As this article says, the rest of the world who has slower internet are suffering because of the west's bloat. Also, TALKING about a problem is the first steps to solving it.
Good post. As the author mentions at the end, I'm always in a catch 22 since I work in digital marketing for a living, but hate tracking and cluttered, slow merchant websites too. AMP is a huge...
Good post. As the author mentions at the end, I'm always in a catch 22 since I work in digital marketing for a living, but hate tracking and cluttered, slow merchant websites too. AMP is a huge topic at conferences this year and makes a lot of sense; especially if your audience is outside of fast internet zones like most of the World.
As a web developer, I create what I hate. I'm not a fan of the typical 'hero' images that take up the entire screen, followed by sections with far too much padding, sometimes coupled with...
As a web developer, I create what I hate. I'm not a fan of the typical 'hero' images that take up the entire screen, followed by sections with far too much padding, sometimes coupled with unnecessary animations such as images sliding or fading in. And yes, of course they require you to download certain fonts, more than one stylesheet, a plethora of plugins if the website is on a CMS, all of which coincides with a multitude of tracking plugins and other scripts.
Problem is, this is how business owners want their websites to function, or at the very least look. If we were to create a website with optimal spacing for showing as much content as possible without all the fancy stuff, they'd say it looks 'old' or out-dated. It'd look like...well...old reddit or currently Tildes. Now some of the padding and such makes sense from a mobile perspective, and that's really what I believe started this nonsense in the first place.
2008 saw the rise of smartphones and a glaring issues with mobile browsing. Websites were pretty shit at displaying content on smaller screens, and it didn't help that different sized screens were introduced as time went on. Responsive design became a top priority, causing designers/developers to essentially create two versions of the same website. You can have an entirely separate subdomain that loaded and was dedicated to the mobile version, or simply create a single responsive website with media queries and other tools.
But that divide between responsive and non-responsive grew smaller and smaller over time. Instead of focusing on creating two separate versions, modern web is essentially a combination of both, with more emphasis on mobile-friendliness (which is okay, since like 70% of people visit your website from a mobile device). Crazy padding makes sense on a touch device, so it was simply brought over to the desktop versions as well because it's visually appealing and frankly easier to just apply the same styles to both versions. Same for hero images, the rise of parallax, etc. Mobile is really the cause for websites being so big, both in the visual and physical sense.
We'll often times meet clients with older websites looking for an update. Sometimes these websites were created in the early to mid 2000's, and it shows. And I honestly wouldn't mind if that came back somehow. It would certainly take some adjusting to, but I'd be down for it.
This post lines up with a lot of my thoughts about the awfulness of the "modern web". There are a few other articles on similar topics that I linked to from the "Keep the site lightweight" section of the Tildes technical goals doc.
Sometimes, I hit F5 on Tildes and think I didn't press it down all the way because the page loads faster than I can blink.
Deimos, you are a god among web developers. I didn't know what it was like to love the design of a forum until I was invited here. I'm absolutely astounded by its unwavering usability on both desktop and mobile, with or without JavaScript. Thank you for everything, and keep up the hard work!
Speaking of old topics popping back up. ;)
Haha, you got me! This is a good example of my point about side conversations. I love this article, though, and I do think more should read it.
On the subject of common bullshit in the modern web, I hate single-page applications, especially ones that hijack page reload shortcuts to perform some kind of "pseudo-refresh". They're typically over-engineered, bloated, buggy pieces of garbage, and yet they're the popular way to do things now. And, of course, larger companies up the bloat quite a bit more by integrating all kinds of behavioral tracking features so they can mine as much advertising data as possible.
My main issue with single page sites is that I can't open up multiple links in new tabs all at once without doing something stupid like clicking one and then opening a new tab with my browser's back button for each link.
The sad thing is that when AJAX got popular, the whole idea was that it was supposed to make websites perform faster since there were fewer page updates.
Then designers got a hold of those tools and said "forget speed, I want to force everyone to watch a stupid animation every time they scroll up or down."
And my search to find out how to strangle someone over the internet continues.
In reality this is not within the remit of a web developer's job. Virtually no project manager cares about page weight because the vast majority of customers don't (as far as management can tell, anyway), and as such there's no business incentive for this to change.
This is targeted at the wrong people.
I tend to agree. While I fully agree with the author, it seems they miss why these companies do these things. Yes, everyone hates autoplaying videos, but not enough to impact viewership, while simultaneously providing a very lucrative ad space. Yes, people hate newsletters and their popups, but the extra engagement they get from the few people who do sign up is enough to outweigh how annoying it is to others. Yes, the consumer would probably want the page to load a second faster, but in exchange the tracking beacons provide them additional data about their demographics, which is apparently really valuable to them.
The majority of these things aren't due to lazy developers using bloated frameworks, but rather, conscious marketing decisions following cargo-cult advertising techniques, which if you ask the marketing people, actually work well enough to offset any lost viewership.
So if there's no business incentive to change, and consumers don't care enough to demand change, is it even worth talking about? Honest question.
I would say, yes, it is even worth talking about. Recognizing a problem is worth our time, even if its to sit around this digital campfire and bitch about our bullshit IT jobs with one another. I know it seems pretty obvious to us, but there is a generation of people who think this web is NORMAL, and to declare that its not, helps change a persons paradigm. As this article says, the rest of the world who has slower internet are suffering because of the west's bloat. Also, TALKING about a problem is the first steps to solving it.
Good post. As the author mentions at the end, I'm always in a catch 22 since I work in digital marketing for a living, but hate tracking and cluttered, slow merchant websites too. AMP is a huge topic at conferences this year and makes a lot of sense; especially if your audience is outside of fast internet zones like most of the World.
As a web developer, I create what I hate. I'm not a fan of the typical 'hero' images that take up the entire screen, followed by sections with far too much padding, sometimes coupled with unnecessary animations such as images sliding or fading in. And yes, of course they require you to download certain fonts, more than one stylesheet, a plethora of plugins if the website is on a CMS, all of which coincides with a multitude of tracking plugins and other scripts.
Problem is, this is how business owners want their websites to function, or at the very least look. If we were to create a website with optimal spacing for showing as much content as possible without all the fancy stuff, they'd say it looks 'old' or out-dated. It'd look like...well...old reddit or currently Tildes. Now some of the padding and such makes sense from a mobile perspective, and that's really what I believe started this nonsense in the first place.
2008 saw the rise of smartphones and a glaring issues with mobile browsing. Websites were pretty shit at displaying content on smaller screens, and it didn't help that different sized screens were introduced as time went on. Responsive design became a top priority, causing designers/developers to essentially create two versions of the same website. You can have an entirely separate subdomain that loaded and was dedicated to the mobile version, or simply create a single responsive website with media queries and other tools.
But that divide between responsive and non-responsive grew smaller and smaller over time. Instead of focusing on creating two separate versions, modern web is essentially a combination of both, with more emphasis on mobile-friendliness (which is okay, since like 70% of people visit your website from a mobile device). Crazy padding makes sense on a touch device, so it was simply brought over to the desktop versions as well because it's visually appealing and frankly easier to just apply the same styles to both versions. Same for hero images, the rise of parallax, etc. Mobile is really the cause for websites being so big, both in the visual and physical sense.
We'll often times meet clients with older websites looking for an update. Sometimes these websites were created in the early to mid 2000's, and it shows. And I honestly wouldn't mind if that came back somehow. It would certainly take some adjusting to, but I'd be down for it.