The web is a beautiful platform that has allowed us a fantastic medium to share and express data.
There a places that abuse this privilege, but everyone has the freedom to choose not support places that do.
Wanting to reduce the web to a text renderer because one doesn’t like a handful of sites is ridiculous and childish.
If you just want text, go read a book. Enough already.
@Are0h Well... I don't agree :)
Now add "web applications" and let's call that the "executable web". It's also cool! Though it's more challenging to make safe (especially right now with meltdown/spectre) and friendly to user freedom (but not incompatible)
@Are0h I guess even with 500 chars nuance is hard to fit in too :)
Some points we probably agree on?
- Meltdown/Spectre means that atm probably all critical websites should have a "noscript compatible" version
- "app store"'ification of the web is bad, especially if JS and etc are permitted DRM (a world where nobody is imprisoned for right-click-view-source)
- Executable web security isn't great because browsers putting security after features, but we do want sandboxed execution to get better
I don’t agree with no script. I think devs need to stop writing shitty code.
I’m still on the fence about that. We’re pushing the web in a direction it was never meant to go, so there are gonna be some growing pains. I like the idea of the web a platform but we need better tools. That’s gonna take time.
I do agree with that. I think we’re starting to see a trend where security is given priority so I
@Are0h Well at the moment "devs, don't write shitty code" can't save you against rowhammer/meltdown/spectre because it's a problem at a layer *below* browsers... so you can visit any website and it can steal your sekrets and you wouldn't know it. A lot of that isn't developers.. it's hardware manufacturers! So the only thing that can semi-save you is to turn on noscript. It sucks.
Hopefully that's not a terrifying reality we have to live with long term though!
@cwebber Ah I didn’t say it was limited to web developers. Those particular bugs exploit how hardware interfaces interact with the system.
I’m a bit lenient with that because who could have predicted it, but yeah they need to improve as well.
Nah I don’t think it’s that terrifying. We just need to adapt has the web expands.
No script seems like a panicked response to an issue that needs some real thought.
Adapt, don’t just react, you know?
One of the things that makes it amazing is how it has the capacity to gracefully enhance/degrade.
If I proclaim "sites should work well without JS!" (give me a pint or two and I might), my intent is:
"It is both possible and potentially in your interest to work well without JS, so cautious, casual users have a good experience and can become regulars who enable scripting and have an even better experience!!"
These sites have made a trade: they have abandoned compatibility with the scriptless web in exchange for better developer tools.
This gives a bipolar experience. The site either works really well (better use of dev time), or doesn't work at all.
That's the right choice for some sites, but I will contend it's not the right choice for all.
I do wonder, are devs making that choice with their eyes open, or just hopping on bandwagons?
ha, indeed there are bandwagons galore (there are people that will adopt anythin google or facebook are pushing)
but there is also a core problem that we still dont have an optimal design how to split and organize the work between what the server is doing and what the browser is doing...
this is a problem if you want to create webapps that have professional "desktop" feel and functionality...
As an example, having a good offline app experience requires modern JS magic, so you may as well use modern tools.
OTOH, if your site is basically long-tail blog with mostly casual visitors, or a search engine where users never ask the same question twice - anything which depends on the server to be useful, then graceful degradation and "web 2.0" techniques may be a fine fit.
JS is more nuanced. I will point out that the more annoying it is to browse the web with noscript, the less likely people are to do so.
Today, that means more people are put at risk of all sorts of nasty JS-based attacks. People aren't wrong to feel this is a problem.
Sticking with positive arguments, devs who make sites that gracefully degrade are helping users stay safe by making a secure browsing experience less awful. 😇
I don’t have a problem with people expressing concern as knowledge of the web works proliferates. I think people understanding it is a good thing for everyone.
What I do have a problem with having knee jerk reactions to issues that require more thought than tear it all down.
I agree that this line of argument is rarely good. Another example I find unsatisfying is "tear it all down" when it comes to existing institutions when that call to action *isn't* coupled with an immediate plan to replace something with.
Lots of people do have suggestions on how to reform or replace systems, but calling for tear-down alone is the easy part.
Perhaps the difficulty of conveying nuanced conversations in character-limited social networks results in a lot of this frustration and weak dialogue. This is one reason why I find that especially 140char twitter was the worst when it came to discussion... not enough space to elaborate.
@cwebber @Are0h I suspect a lot of the tear-it-all-down in this context comes from users who have decided NoScript (or even NoCSS) is something they need, and they rant from a place of frustration about how the web doesn't work well for them [anymore].
Maybe they're silly, maybe they have needs we're overlooking. I've seen both... but in either case, expecting frustrated people to make nuanced arguments is a tad optimistic IMO. 😜
@HerraBRE @cwebber @Are0h some of us have been building stuff for the web for rather a long time and have drifted into the conclusion that the web was in a bunch of essentials an extremely damaging mistake.
there aren't really a lot of us who feel that way who expect "tear it all down" to offer a literal solution. personally i think we're basically fucked. still, that people steeped in the tech & culture of it for so long feel that way can be instructive.
If anything, I’d argue people who make such outlandish comments aren’t realistic interested in improving anything.
And that’s fine, but I think we need to be very careful about who we listen to. Some folks don’t want solutions.
Attention is a limited resource and the added value of yet another opinion (that isn't accompanied by action) can go down pretty quickly in our line of work.
And on that note I bid you all good-night! Thanks for the chat! 🦉
That said, I do believe collaboration to improve is generally preferable. I’m the context of the web, that’s how we’ve gotten here.
Suggesting to remove js from the process is counter to how we got all of the cool stuff we use today. It’s just nonsensical.