Its sort of a philosophical question but who should decide how you view and interract with a website? Is it the job of the designer to design a website so they see fit, using JS and CSS to finetune the experience of using the website? Or is it the job of the end user to use userscripts and themes to sculpt the web how they see fit?
/g/ - Technology
install openbsd
[Make a Post]A developer should always assume that the end user is a retarded monkey. Not necessarily because they are, but simply to make it as much of a pleasant experience as possible. You have to realize that most people using the web today dont know shit about computers and just want to get shit done.
There is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it, in which case its the the developers fault. Websites should remain completely functional even with that shit turned off though.
There is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it, in which case its the the developers fault. Websites should remain completely functional even with that shit turned off though.
File: d242aaaa0959cf0e806ed594f674a9ef4f42874331226cfa6f3299e5d34da6de.jpg (dl) (25.66 KiB)

Again this discussion.
>who should decide how you view and interract
Cognitive science and good programming practices.
>>9790
>much of a pleasant experience
Idiocracy.
>developer misuses
What you call "misuse" a attacker see as a possible exploitation area. Allowing javascript allows not just for misuse, but also to security threats.
>who should decide how you view and interract
Cognitive science and good programming practices.
>>9790
>much of a pleasant experience
Idiocracy.
>developer misuses
What you call "misuse" a attacker see as a possible exploitation area. Allowing javascript allows not just for misuse, but also to security threats.
>>9789
The web as it stands now is basically irrepairable. But how it should work is this:
websites have two layers: a schema, and the data. The schema describes the format for the data, and how it should be presented to the user. The data provides the actual information. The schema would change only rarely. This has a few effects:
- people can design alternative presentations of the same websites
- people can treat the data like an API
- websites can share schemas, and therefore designs, backends, and so on.
On top of all this, there would be strict rules about how interactions are presented to users. Websites would have to tell users when their actions would be sent off to a remote server, for example.
Userscripts and themes are practically useless for these things, because websites are designed to only support one theme, and because they change so frequently that your code always breaks.
>>9790
>there is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it
the problem is that if we call anything anti-user "misusing it", then developers constantly misuse javascript, and often do so by mistake. We need to make it hard to use scripts in an anti-user way, and we need to make it obvious to users and developers alike when it happens
The web as it stands now is basically irrepairable. But how it should work is this:
websites have two layers: a schema, and the data. The schema describes the format for the data, and how it should be presented to the user. The data provides the actual information. The schema would change only rarely. This has a few effects:
- people can design alternative presentations of the same websites
- people can treat the data like an API
- websites can share schemas, and therefore designs, backends, and so on.
On top of all this, there would be strict rules about how interactions are presented to users. Websites would have to tell users when their actions would be sent off to a remote server, for example.
Userscripts and themes are practically useless for these things, because websites are designed to only support one theme, and because they change so frequently that your code always breaks.
>>9790
>there is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it
the problem is that if we call anything anti-user "misusing it", then developers constantly misuse javascript, and often do so by mistake. We need to make it hard to use scripts in an anti-user way, and we need to make it obvious to users and developers alike when it happens
>>9790
>but simply to make it as much of a pleasant experience as possible.
javascript websites are not pleasant experience, they are the opposite of it
>You have to realize that most people using the web today dont know shit about computers and just want to get shit done.
and can't get shit done with web browser and javascript shit
>There is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it, in which case its the the developers fault.
there is everything wrong with javascript and there is almost not a single legitimate usage of it. why would anyone use javascript? web browser shouldn't be virtual machine running random code displaying ads and tracking your activity
>Websites should remain completely functional even with that shit turned off though.
websites shouldn't be websites, they should be apps
for example one banking application and you use it for any banking provider
http://weboob.org/
>but simply to make it as much of a pleasant experience as possible.
javascript websites are not pleasant experience, they are the opposite of it
>You have to realize that most people using the web today dont know shit about computers and just want to get shit done.
and can't get shit done with web browser and javascript shit
>There is nothing wrong with javascript unless the developer misuses it, in which case its the the developers fault.
there is everything wrong with javascript and there is almost not a single legitimate usage of it. why would anyone use javascript? web browser shouldn't be virtual machine running random code displaying ads and tracking your activity
>Websites should remain completely functional even with that shit turned off though.
websites shouldn't be websites, they should be apps
for example one banking application and you use it for any banking provider
http://weboob.org/
>Who should design UI on the Web?
They should all take notes from Nanochan.
If they don't, banned off the FUCKING INTERNET!!
They should all take notes from Nanochan.
If they don't, banned off the FUCKING INTERNET!!
If you "need" javascript to do something on your web page, you shouldn't be doing that something on your web page. You shouldn't have a web page either, who said you could? It certainly wasn't righteousness.
Same if you "need" CSS or HTML.
HTTP is also garbage and should be avoided at all costs but at least it allows you to send back forms which is a feature only shared by gopher and gopher's version can't compete.
Even then you should use gopher unless your forms are too complicated for it, but either way, you probably shouldn't be using gopher or HTTP to do your thing at that point either.
The only non-poz versions of the web currently available are gopher and text files over FTP. Even then gopher and FTP aren't all that good, although at least they work, and compared to what's in common usage, they're fucking amazing.
Same if you "need" CSS or HTML.
HTTP is also garbage and should be avoided at all costs but at least it allows you to send back forms which is a feature only shared by gopher and gopher's version can't compete.
Even then you should use gopher unless your forms are too complicated for it, but either way, you probably shouldn't be using gopher or HTTP to do your thing at that point either.
The only non-poz versions of the web currently available are gopher and text files over FTP. Even then gopher and FTP aren't all that good, although at least they work, and compared to what's in common usage, they're fucking amazing.
>>9789
If we're talking about shoulds, let's just skip to the endgame. There should be no Web. Thus no need to worry about Web UIs.
If we're talking about shoulds, let's just skip to the endgame. There should be no Web. Thus no need to worry about Web UIs.
>>9814
what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be reading physical books or something?
what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be reading physical books or something?
>>9809
>t. somebody whos never designed an interface ever or is stuck in the '90s in that regard
I mean obviously some people overuse that shit. Sometimes you see static webpages with like one paragraph worth of useful information that takes 30s to load and scrolls at like 10fps because somebody went nuts with the thing.
Most of the time (tracking aside, we will assume that the developer/his boss isnt an asshole here) however it can greatly enhance the experience if done subtly. Triggering a page reload for every little thing is a great way to bore the shit out of your user and make him fuck off. Sometimes you dont care but im assuming that the purpose of a webpage to maximize the traffic. Making it as smooth as possible using AJAX and whatnot wont hurt anybody - especially if you have a bunch of micro-actions like change color of something etc. If somebody is as antiJS as you are, i can respect that and make sure you dont need it for it to remain functional, but why should the remaining 98% have a worse experience? Its the little things that separate you from the competitor.
>for example one banking application and you use it for any banking provider
Thats certainly an interesting idea but it has its own set of drawbacks. You would need some central authority who would have power over the features, possibly misusing it. You would also have to somehow chose it. Lastly this isnt applicable to every sort of a website since often times their functionality diverts a lot. You couldnt have one for eshops for example as everyone of them is completely different. Sometimes you have forums, questions&answers, etc...
Coming to thing of it, i cant really see any use of that besides banking and maybe imageboards
>>9814
Honestly why do we have anything, lets just burn all of our possessions and go back to hunting&gathering.
>t. somebody whos never designed an interface ever or is stuck in the '90s in that regard
I mean obviously some people overuse that shit. Sometimes you see static webpages with like one paragraph worth of useful information that takes 30s to load and scrolls at like 10fps because somebody went nuts with the thing.
Most of the time (tracking aside, we will assume that the developer/his boss isnt an asshole here) however it can greatly enhance the experience if done subtly. Triggering a page reload for every little thing is a great way to bore the shit out of your user and make him fuck off. Sometimes you dont care but im assuming that the purpose of a webpage to maximize the traffic. Making it as smooth as possible using AJAX and whatnot wont hurt anybody - especially if you have a bunch of micro-actions like change color of something etc. If somebody is as antiJS as you are, i can respect that and make sure you dont need it for it to remain functional, but why should the remaining 98% have a worse experience? Its the little things that separate you from the competitor.
>for example one banking application and you use it for any banking provider
Thats certainly an interesting idea but it has its own set of drawbacks. You would need some central authority who would have power over the features, possibly misusing it. You would also have to somehow chose it. Lastly this isnt applicable to every sort of a website since often times their functionality diverts a lot. You couldnt have one for eshops for example as everyone of them is completely different. Sometimes you have forums, questions&answers, etc...
Coming to thing of it, i cant really see any use of that besides banking and maybe imageboards
>>9814
Honestly why do we have anything, lets just burn all of our possessions and go back to hunting&gathering.
>>9789
>Who should design UI on the Web?
The wise man.
>JS and CSS to finetune
Sledgehammer and chainsaw to finetune.
>Who should design UI on the Web?
The wise man.
>JS and CSS to finetune
Sledgehammer and chainsaw to finetune.
>>9789
neither. the web is for static declarative documents
neither. the web is for static declarative documents
[Catalog][Overboard][Update]
[Reply]1 files, 13 replies