Honestly and without any trace of irony, I wish CSS would die and be replaced by maybe half a dozen new HTML tags to support a few specific responsive design patterns.
CSS runs counter to the concept of HTML. Web design used to be inherently user-centric. The designer was not supposed to have much of a say in how it looked on a client's system, because that was up to the client. The designer only provided high-level hints like "this is a paragraph" or "this is emphasized". The browser decided how a paragraph should be displayed, which fonts to use, etc.
Over time, visual designers clawed more and more control from the user, much to the detriment of the entire rest of the world.
99% of web sites would be better if they conformed to basic semantic markup. Low-level design parameters should not exist on the web.
It's a straight line from CSS to Google's new trusted web bullshit. It's all about wresting control away from the user and giving it to the site designer. Fuck you, site designer. My eyeballs do not belong to you.
lol. lmao. What am I even reading?
The CSS is literally openly served along with the website. One line change in the HTML (in allows you to make your own CSS for a site. There's a world of difference between that and "Google's new trusted web bullshit". And you know who sits much closer to Google than HTML and CSS?
Javascript. That's who.
Have no idea what old mate is even on about. I thought it might have been a parody or copypasta
Javascript sits closer to Mozilla than Google. JS was created for the Netscape Navigator, and Netscape created Mozilla.
2.0b baby
I think its not the creation its things like obfuscated js and proprietary webassembly
That I agree with. People are praising webassembly to replace JS (it won't, but that's another story), but at least obfuscated JS can still be read, albeit with some difficulty, but it's harder to read WA executables. There will be a lot of malware created with WA.
It doesn't matter if it's open or closed. The problem is the unnecessary complexity and lack of straightforward and standardized meaning. If you want to customize the way you view the web in general, you will either limit yourself to small changes like ad blockers, or you will need a handcrafted custom CSS for every site you visit. There's no real standardization in formatting. Everything is just a div with an arbitrary name.
RSS feeds could address much of this, but it would need to be taken a step further.
I only disagree with you in that for an application, the application designer should choose what an application looks like.
The argument of if applications should be deployed via web browser is an independent discussion.
The argument of if applications should be deployed via web browser is an independent discussion.
That discussion begins with the question "Should applications be deployed via web browser?" and ends with the response "No"
I think that the argument here lies in where people draw the line on what is considered valid formatting and "too much".
I think, that since html has paragraph hints, there is little difference in also describing what paragraphs should look like. Which slippery-slopes our way to entire applications. If html is more than just a data format, but also a visual formatting language (paragraphs are visual formatting hints, don't try to argue otherwise) then additional visual formatting rules is the natural progression. The vast, vast, vast majority of people view html as a markup language for describing the visual layout of information. HTMLs creation is basically a declarative method by which visual representation of data can be made, while also including the data to be displayed.
I personally have been developing HTML since 93/94 and JavaScript since 96. Not once during the early years did anyone ever say "HTML" isn't a visual markup language. If you wanted a data markup language you used something else. XML was developed specifically for that purpose... To define the data markup without the visual aspect of it because HTML was for visual representation.
I get it. You are nostalgic for a bygone era... Or you don't like developing with JS... Or css is just too hard for you to understand. I get it. HTML was a dev language, that made dev quality UI and barely would scrape the grey box standards of today... And then designers got involved and things got hard.
Damn.
I'll argue that paragraphs are not just visual formatting hints. Like <em>, they impart semantic meaning. Text within a paragraph is closely related and should not be scattered across the page or broken up by other elements. Just like <h1> is more than just "bigger and bolder!"
There are other tags you could've chosen that would support your argument. <div> for example is pure layout, so I'm not saying your argument holds no water, but you put the parenthetical there and it seems either poorly thought out or lacking in perspective.
I think the key here is that there was initially no CSS and it was required to have a way to assist the readability of the content and so layout tags were added, but I'd argue that's an artifact of how the web evolved and not the purpose of HTML.
If appeal to age is an important factor, I've been using the internet since before there was a "world wide web."
I don't know why I can't make it stop inserting these close tags. Probably a client bug.</div></h1></em>
Lol. That's a good argument but I didn't say paragraph doesn't denote more than visual information. I said that it unequivocally denotes visual information.
I agree with the rest of your analysis though.
yeah, substance > style.
the content/facts/information is what should matter, make it accessible. share it.
let the audience access it however best suits them.
I would argue that json has become the data format method of choice for most applications.
What you want is mostly what json is, not html.
The format doesn't bother me too much.
json can be great for sure.
But I reckon some people could still bung a load of unnecessarily complex layout and aesthetic data in there, and potentially screw up the data structure and still make it harder to access than need be.
I accept that, if the json is structured logically, it should handle both substantive and layout data, and probably easiest to get to either the content or the formatting.
To be fair, the distinction should be pointed out that no sane individual would deploy their entire application to a browser right?
Like their whole stack?
Right?
padmeface.jpg
Honestly... They are excellent targets.
How many multiplatform applications have you made that respected the designers/UX/UI choices well?
It's way harder outside of html/css/js...
electron lmao
Good thing web pages are supposed to be documents and not "applications," then!
If you want a goddamn application, go resurrect Java Web Start or something.
That was true 20 years ago. Things evolve. No one wants to download and install ten million individual apps for every single thing they do on the internet.
The irony of people posting on web applications they utilize for their own enjoyment, "applications don't belong on web browsers" is killing me here.
There is a portion of the tech industry with their head stuck firmly up their ass and it seems a lot of em hang out in the fediverse. These people would demand we go back to party lines and manual switchboards. Techno-hipsters who are just angry at the next generation who took their BBS internet and actually made the world use it.
Downvote me, that's fine. Use that interactivity application on your browser. Go be the very definition of irony. Please.
There is also a bit of a design arms race going on here.
My business has a bloated site with animations, Google fonts, graphic design, etc., etc. Why? Because normie customers expect it and if I don't have it they'll go to a competitor that had a more "designed" website.
If most websites looked as if they were built in the year 2000 we wouldn't lose much functionality and we'd spend much less resources on this stuff...
Because normies customers expect it and I don't have it they'll go to a competitor that had a more "designed" website.
This is exactly where I decided to just not have a website for my business (electrical contractor in a tourist town). I'm already busy enough as is, and it's just one more aspect that helps filter out knuckleheads that usually end up being more trouble than the money is worth.
I had intended on creating a basic website that had all of the pertinent information. Then as I started getting into it, everyone had their "design/visual recommendations" and that "a polished website was a testament to the quality of my work." It kinda dawned on me one day that I'd rather have something basic and functional so that I can focus on what's important, the actual work. Well, that's not how the world works anymore, so I said screw it. Now I just tell people I don't have time for it, and if they take issue with it, find someone else.
How do I upvote this more than once?
I really would like that styling was a part of the structure itself too, but way before then, I'd love for JS and HTML to be coupled closer together. The way Angular/React/etc couple things at render time is just way more straightforward.
Unfortunately, I can also think of a bajillion reasons why Js should stay decoupled.
If only they actually did that instead of faking it then rendering it afterwards.
That shadow Dom is a crazy making factory... Although it's probably better today.
And then the Internet killed the radio star smh out loud
The web killed the Internet.
JavaScript killed the web.
CSS defiled its corpse.
Honestly and without any trace of irony, I wish CSS would die and be replaced by maybe half a dozen new HTML tags to support a few specific responsive design patterns.
CSS runs counter to the concept of HTML. Web design used to be inherently user-centric. The designer was not supposed to have much of a say in how it looked on a client's system, because that was up to the client. The designer only provided high-level hints like "this is a paragraph" or "this is emphasized". The browser decided how a paragraph should be displayed, which fonts to use, etc.
Over time, visual designers clawed more and more control from the user, much to the detriment of the entire rest of the world.
99% of web sites would be better if they conformed to basic semantic markup. Low-level design parameters should not exist on the web.
It's a straight line from CSS to Google's new trusted web bullshit. It's all about wresting control away from the user and giving it to the site designer. Fuck you, site designer. My eyeballs do not belong to you.
lol. lmao. What am I even reading?
The CSS is literally openly served along with the website. One line change in the HTML (in
Javascript. That's who.
Have no idea what old mate is even on about. I thought it might have been a parody or copypasta
Javascript sits closer to Mozilla than Google. JS was created for the Netscape Navigator, and Netscape created Mozilla.
2.0b baby
I think its not the creation its things like obfuscated js and proprietary webassembly
That I agree with. People are praising webassembly to replace JS (it won't, but that's another story), but at least obfuscated JS can still be read, albeit with some difficulty, but it's harder to read WA executables. There will be a lot of malware created with WA.
It doesn't matter if it's open or closed. The problem is the unnecessary complexity and lack of straightforward and standardized meaning. If you want to customize the way you view the web in general, you will either limit yourself to small changes like ad blockers, or you will need a handcrafted custom CSS for every site you visit. There's no real standardization in formatting. Everything is just a div with an arbitrary name.
RSS feeds could address much of this, but it would need to be taken a step further.
I only disagree with you in that for an application, the application designer should choose what an application looks like.
The argument of if applications should be deployed via web browser is an independent discussion.
That discussion begins with the question "Should applications be deployed via web browser?" and ends with the response "No"
I think that the argument here lies in where people draw the line on what is considered valid formatting and "too much".
I think, that since html has paragraph hints, there is little difference in also describing what paragraphs should look like. Which slippery-slopes our way to entire applications. If html is more than just a data format, but also a visual formatting language (paragraphs are visual formatting hints, don't try to argue otherwise) then additional visual formatting rules is the natural progression. The vast, vast, vast majority of people view html as a markup language for describing the visual layout of information. HTMLs creation is basically a declarative method by which visual representation of data can be made, while also including the data to be displayed.
I personally have been developing HTML since 93/94 and JavaScript since 96. Not once during the early years did anyone ever say "HTML" isn't a visual markup language. If you wanted a data markup language you used something else. XML was developed specifically for that purpose... To define the data markup without the visual aspect of it because HTML was for visual representation.
I get it. You are nostalgic for a bygone era... Or you don't like developing with JS... Or css is just too hard for you to understand. I get it. HTML was a dev language, that made dev quality UI and barely would scrape the grey box standards of today... And then designers got involved and things got hard.
Damn.
I'll argue that paragraphs are not just visual formatting hints. Like
<em>, they impart semantic meaning. Text within a paragraph is closely related and should not be scattered across the page or broken up by other elements. Just like<h1>is more than just "bigger and bolder!"There are other tags you could've chosen that would support your argument.
<div>for example is pure layout, so I'm not saying your argument holds no water, but you put the parenthetical there and it seems either poorly thought out or lacking in perspective.I think the key here is that there was initially no CSS and it was required to have a way to assist the readability of the content and so layout tags were added, but I'd argue that's an artifact of how the web evolved and not the purpose of HTML.
If appeal to age is an important factor, I've been using the internet since before there was a "world wide web."
I don't know why I can't make it stop inserting these close tags. Probably a client bug.</div></h1></em>
Lol. That's a good argument but I didn't say paragraph doesn't denote more than visual information. I said that it unequivocally denotes visual information.
I agree with the rest of your analysis though.
yeah, substance > style.
the content/facts/information is what should matter, make it accessible. share it.
let the audience access it however best suits them.
I would argue that json has become the data format method of choice for most applications.
What you want is mostly what json is, not html.
The format doesn't bother me too much.
json can be great for sure.
But I reckon some people could still bung a load of unnecessarily complex layout and aesthetic data in there, and potentially screw up the data structure and still make it harder to access than need be.
I accept that, if the json is structured logically, it should handle both substantive and layout data, and probably easiest to get to either the content or the formatting.
To be fair, the distinction should be pointed out that no sane individual would deploy their entire application to a browser right?
Like their whole stack?
Right? padmeface.jpg
Honestly... They are excellent targets.
How many multiplatform applications have you made that respected the designers/UX/UI choices well?
It's way harder outside of html/css/js...
electron lmao
Good thing web pages are supposed to be documents and not "applications," then!
If you want a goddamn application, go resurrect Java Web Start or something.
That was true 20 years ago. Things evolve. No one wants to download and install ten million individual apps for every single thing they do on the internet.
The irony of people posting on web applications they utilize for their own enjoyment, "applications don't belong on web browsers" is killing me here.
There is a portion of the tech industry with their head stuck firmly up their ass and it seems a lot of em hang out in the fediverse. These people would demand we go back to party lines and manual switchboards. Techno-hipsters who are just angry at the next generation who took their BBS internet and actually made the world use it.
Downvote me, that's fine. Use that interactivity application on your browser. Go be the very definition of irony. Please.
There is also a bit of a design arms race going on here.
My business has a bloated site with animations, Google fonts, graphic design, etc., etc. Why? Because normie customers expect it and if I don't have it they'll go to a competitor that had a more "designed" website.
If most websites looked as if they were built in the year 2000 we wouldn't lose much functionality and we'd spend much less resources on this stuff...
This is exactly where I decided to just not have a website for my business (electrical contractor in a tourist town). I'm already busy enough as is, and it's just one more aspect that helps filter out knuckleheads that usually end up being more trouble than the money is worth.
I had intended on creating a basic website that had all of the pertinent information. Then as I started getting into it, everyone had their "design/visual recommendations" and that "a polished website was a testament to the quality of my work." It kinda dawned on me one day that I'd rather have something basic and functional so that I can focus on what's important, the actual work. Well, that's not how the world works anymore, so I said screw it. Now I just tell people I don't have time for it, and if they take issue with it, find someone else.
How do I upvote this more than once?
I really would like that styling was a part of the structure itself too, but way before then, I'd love for JS and HTML to be coupled closer together. The way Angular/React/etc couple things at render time is just way more straightforward.
Unfortunately, I can also think of a bajillion reasons why Js should stay decoupled.
If only they actually did that instead of faking it then rendering it afterwards.
That shadow Dom is a crazy making factory... Although it's probably better today.
And then the Internet killed the radio star smh out loud
Richard Stallman?
I use lynx btw