• Logged-in sites

JavaScript vs No JavaScript War of May 2016

"Regressive Web Apps"

https://adactio.com/journal/10708

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774

The geeks get fired up easily, and I like it.

Both sides are right.

Logged-in sites

When I log into sites that provide functions such as:

• email
• server hosting (managing DNS)
• tax preparing
• banking
• publishing

I expect some kind of JavaScript enhanced interface, and when it is done elegantly, the experience is pleasant and satisfactory. I complete the desired tasks, and I move on.

Could those web sites/apps/services function with JavaScript disabled? Probably, but the experience could be a bit clunkier and slower.

When just enough JavaScript is used, then that's fine. Elegance over extravagance. The focus should be on utility.

All of my web publishing apps can create and edit text with the HTML textarea box. But the apps also provide the option to create and edit text with a simple JavaScript editor, which I enjoy using.

I started this post by adding a small amount of text into the textarea box and saving it. I was going to go do something else and come back to this later, but I decided to write more. Therefore I edited this post by loading it into the JavaScript editor. When I write or edit for a long time, I prefer to use the JavaScript editor, which consumes nearly the entire screen, at least vertically.

When I access sites that do not require me to login, and those sites are focused on marketing a movie, a video game, or it's an artist's website, then I expect a fancy experience that makes heavy use of JavaScript. I'm not concerned about page size nor page load speed. I'm not interested in utility. I'm interested in elegance, an experience.

My weather app http://toledoweather.info uses jQuery Mobile. It could function with JavaScript disabled, but I like it the way it is.

I like reading text-heavy content sites with JavaScript disabled because I'm not logged into the sites, and most of these sites force users to download pounds of useless JavaScript. To read a simple text article of a few hundreds words, some sites require the user's web browser to download 5 to 10 megabytes of data.

Media sites are some of the worst abusers of the web. It's stunning how bloated, clunky, and slow their websites function. When opening multiple tabs, these wretched websites will bog down older computers. It's necessary to read these sites with JavaScript disabled.

I like JavaScript when it's truly useful. Of course, who gets decide what is useful?

When reading a 500-word editorial at the ToledoBlade.com, do I need to be bombarded with nearly 10 megabytes of cruft?

I realize that media sites depend upon advertising for revenue. But each year, the average size of the web page increases, and then Facebook and Google respond with their own technologies that allow users to access the content quickly on their respective servers, instead of on the publishers' servers. But that's not Facebook's and Google's fault.

My sites/apps http://toledoweather.info and http://birdbrainsbrewing.com serve different purposes. One uses JavaScript, and the other doesn't, at least for browsing-only users. The only JavaScript that's uses for my beer brewing site is when I choose to use the JavaScript editor.

---

https://adactio.com/journal/10675/amp
https://medium.com/@fox/the-web-isn-t-uniform-fd67eb631501#.j3c7r7lbs