The Internet is Doom

[Kirby]

Found a recent article detailing a prediction that has come true; that the average webpage size on the Internet is the size Doom's install package.

An interesting retrospect on how much websites have become bloated (at least in file size). I say we just Starr hosting Doom install packages everywhere :P

[Graf Zahl]

Reminds me of the web developer my boss hired recently.

"A web site without Javascript is no website at all..."

These people really have lost the art of efficiency.
Say what you want, but I really prefer a lean site that manages to do its work without resorting to bloatware, plugins and other shit that increases load times. The thing most "modern" sites stand out most for is their awkward usability.

[Maes]

C'mon Graf, who really took w3c's recommendation that "every website should have a pure HTML fallback" seriously? And how far would anyone get by using only pure HTML today, especially in a professional setting? Everything is being driven by frameworks, which in the end translate to heavily Javascript-driven websites, so there's really no escaping it, and no real alternative, either (unless 1990s web designed is considered fashionable again). Other than mobile apps, ofc: many of them are nothing more than website surrogates.

Even something as simple as visiting google.com loads up a LOT of Javascript fluff in the background.

That being said...I think that, at least for gmail, Google used to have a (pure?) HTML fallback, in case connection problems were detected.

[Wovenloaf]

^There's a Sandy Petersen joke in there somewhere. :3

[vadrig4r]

Graf Zahl said:

Say what you want, but I really prefer a lean site that manages to do its work without resorting to bloatware, plugins and other shit that increases load times. The thing most "modern" sites stand out most for is their awkward usability.

For sure. A lot of websites get that balance wrong, or sacrifice usability for flashy nonsense. You can achieve a fair amount with just html and css, though with good design you can add a scripting language (currently javascript) to the mix and still have a lean, fast, bloat-free site. It's really a question of the site's purpose and requirements.

It's clear that some developers (not really the good ones though, and often at the behest of clients' wishes) don't prioritise user experience and speed highly enough.

[HavoX]

Maes said:

C'mon Graf, who really took w3c's recommendation that "every website should have a pure HTML fallback" seriously? And how far would anyone get by using only pure HTML today, especially in a professional setting?

He's got a good point, though... I'm sick of seeing those fucking "this site works best with Javascript" messages.

[Graf Zahl]

Maes said:

C'mon Graf, who really took w3c's recommendation that "every website should have a pure HTML fallback" seriously? And how far would anyone get by using only pure HTML today, especially in a professional setting? Everything is being driven by frameworks, which in the end translate to heavily Javascript-driven websites, so there's really no escaping it, and no real alternative, either (unless 1990s web designed is considered fashionable again). Other than mobile apps, ofc: many of them are nothing more than website surrogates.

... all combined resulting in an abysmal experience for the end user. The art of good design is lost in all that flashy noise.

[Maes]

HavoX said:

He's got a good point, though... I'm sick of seeing those fucking "this site works best with Javascript" messages.

Heh, does any site still display that warning anymore? Or seriously consider the possibility that a non-Javascript-enabled browser can still be in active use?

If it exists, it must be a fallback created by the authoring tools, just in case you happened to reach the page in question through some ancient WAP phone's browser. And in most cases the fallback will just tell you that you can't use the site at all, period.

Ofc there are Javascript blockers and the such...but doing that to modern websites is like pretending to make your computer immune to viruses by precluding it from executing programs in general. Not a very useful computer, at the end of the day.

Graf Zahl said:

... all combined resulting in an abysmal experience for the end user. The art of good design is lost in all that flashy noise.

You know, even if you manage to find the most ascetic and minimalist-looking (the "Apple look") website today, with a plain layout, no flashy ads, no stupid spinners etc., chances are it won't be pure HTML either, but piggyback on multiple complex frameworks underneath.

That being said, an informational and usable website can be made with just HTML, but these tend to be mostly technical FAQs or (for some reason) academic pages. Some examples:

The CD Recordable FAQ
sci.electronics.repair FAQs
Frequency Modulation from some DOD Navy manuals

[vadrig4r]

We all lived through Angelfire, <blink> and <marquee> enough to know that bad designers don't need javascript to make bad websites.

[Linguica]

So what's the state of accessibility with Javascript today? If a person is blind, do Javascript-heavy websites make sure to play nicely with screen readers? Just wondering.

[Maes]

Linguica said:

So what's the state of accessibility with Javascript today? If a person is blind, do Javascript-heavy websites make sure to play nicely with screen readers? Just wondering.

I suppose they could still attempt to parse the "final" HTML form of the document you see rendered on your screen, and read just what is between non-script body tags.

[vadrig4r]

Linguica said:

So what's the state of accessibility with Javascript today? If a person is blind, do Javascript-heavy websites make sure to play nicely with screen readers? Just wondering.

It's improving. In fact now it's probably more important than ever to support javascript properly as screen readers can use it to help navigation. It can also help improve accessibility. And I know you asked specifically about javascript but ARIA in HTML can help with that too.

[Graf Zahl]

Maes said:

You know, even if you manage to find the most ascetic and minimalist-looking (the "Apple look") website today, with a plain layout, no flashy ads, no stupid spinners etc., chances are it won't be pure HTML either, but piggyback on multiple complex frameworks underneath.

Blah, blah!
Apparently you are one of those brainwashed people who got made to believe that there's no way to create an aesthetically pleasing and functional website without Javascript.

The sad state of things is that far too often scripting is used to graft shitty unergonomic control schemes onto it, instead of investing some thought how something well-designed is supposed to function.

Scripting is fine for enhancing, but once it becomes the foundation of everything a site is doomed.

[BrainMuncher]

Maes said:

Heh, does any site still display that warning anymore? Or seriously consider the possibility that a non-Javascript-enabled browser can still be in active use?

Yes many sites show this message.

Maes said:

If it exists, it must be a fallback created by the authoring tools, just in case you happened to reach the page in question through some ancient WAP phone's browser. And in most cases the fallback will just tell you that you can't use the site at all, period.

I don't think so. The messages are quite varied, if it were some automated thing inserted unbeknownst to the author I would have recognised a pattern by now. Some sites do that thing where they overlay a div over the whole page with an angry "You must enable javascript!" commandment. Usually if I simply block that div in particular I'm still able to use the site just fine.

Maes said:

Ofc there are Javascript blockers and the such...but doing that to modern websites is like pretending to make your computer immune to viruses by precluding it from executing programs in general. Not a very useful computer, at the end of the day.

My experience using noscript for many years tells me otherwise. Unless you don't consider google, reddit, wikipedia, etc. to be "modern".

You know, even if you manage to find the most ascetic and minimalist-looking (the "Apple look") website today, with a plain layout, no flashy ads, no stupid spinners etc., chances are it won't be pure HTML either, but piggyback on multiple complex frameworks underneath.

Designing for usability and designing for aesthetics are very different things. I am sure you are right that there are many very simplistic websites out there that are built on a thousand layers of crap. "Looking minimilist" and "being efficient" are two totally unrelated things, and neither implies the other.

That being said, an informational and usable website can be made with just HTML, but these tend to be mostly technical FAQs or (for some reason) academic pages. Some examples:

The only thing you really need javascript for is dynamic page content. The main function of a massive number of websites out there is to display static text and images almost exclusively. There are some things that javascript is absolutely needed for, or where it is simply the best or most efficient way to do something. But no-one complains about that. The problem is that so many websites gratuitously include massive amounts of totally unnecessary bloat. It's kind of like using .net and a whole bunch of fashionable 3rd party libraries where you could have just used a five line batch file.

[hex11]

Maes said:

That being said...I think that, at least for gmail, Google used to have a (pure?) HTML fallback, in case connection problems were detected.

They still do, but it's pretty wonky now. First you have to login as a "google user", and only then does it redirect you to the actual gmail login, where you get to type in your password again (unless you told your browser to save the auth info for those forms).
Also, if you use basic HTML mode (under gmail settings), you can't use any POP3S or IMAPS client. At least, when I tried it gave me an auth error message saying I need to switch off the basic HTML stuff first.
Wasn't like this 5 or so years ago. I don't know exactly when they changed this stuff, but it's pretty lame. At one point they were even outright rejecting Lynx, because "We have detected you're using old browser, upgrade to latest Chrome/Firefox/etc." (there was even a thread on lynx-users mailing list a few years back about this)
Also, there's like a dozen redirections during the login process. Sometimes Lynx bails out with "too many redirects" so I have to uncheck "stay logged in" box or whatever.
It's just getting more painful and difficult every year, so I'm already starting to look for alternative.

[vadrig4r]

hex11 said:

They still do, but it's pretty wonky now. First you have to login as a "google user", and only then does it redirect you to the actual gmail login, where you get to type in your password again (unless you told your browser to save the auth info for those forms).
Also, if you use basic HTML mode (under gmail settings), you can't use any POP3S or IMAPS client. At least, when I tried it gave me an auth error message saying I need to switch off the basic HTML stuff first.
Wasn't like this 5 or so years ago. I don't know exactly when they changed this stuff, but it's pretty lame. At one point they were even outright rejecting Lynx, because "We have detected you're using old browser, upgrade to latest Chrome/Firefox/etc." (there was even a thread on lynx-users mailing list a few years back about this)
Also, there's like a dozen redirections during the login process. Sometimes Lynx bails out with "too many redirects" so I have to uncheck "stay logged in" box or whatever.
It's just getting more painful and difficult every year, so I'm already starting to look for alternative.

I enjoyed using www/links on freebsd if you're looking for a minimal, text-based browser. I'm sure it can be found on other systems too.

[40oz]

I was hoping this would be like dotims where website URLs in the future will be able to be browsed in doom in the form of wad files.

[Doomkid]

Over here we actually pay for our data, and for those who rely on 4G all these sites that are like 999meg just to load are a pain in the wallet. For those with 100 gig or more a month, it theoretically isn't a problem in that respect, but when you have that much data you're probably also experiencing slower speeds unless you're paying a fortune, so again sites with so much data to load will crawl just like single JPG images did back in the 56k era. I find it weird how these things always tend to use quite a bit more than is necessary rather than finding an efficient way to do things.

I always come back the the example of checking notifications on YouTube - Rather than simply opening a new tab with a dedicated page or a small window, it tried to do this flashy java overlay thing that's glitchy as balls when you're trying to scroll or just randomly disappears in the middle of you replying to a comment. It doesn't make any damn sense, it always looks like it's struggling not to glitch out and I see these kinds of things all over the web. Just open a new tab and have a dedicated page if your little java widget sucks so badly that it struggles to stay alive on 99% of browsers.

[TimeOfDeath]

Yeah, being on a 500MB monthly data limit means everything gets disabled, javascript/images/flash. Every now and then one of my bookmarked sites will start requiring javascript, so I'll either stop visiting or enable it (I still have it disabled on doomworld).

[wildweasel]

I actually just learned HTML5 and CSS through college. I feel no major drive to learn JavaScript and I feel like it may be better that I never do.

[duh]

it's 2016, internet is fast nowadays. get with the times bro.

[Clonehunter]

In college we were told that while JavaScript is more or less essential in the modern day despite those stuck in their roots, it's best to rebuild the site as close as possible in layout and basic functionality in the classic methods.

That's about all I got.

[printz]

Uhh, I think most of the over-bloated sites today are those with too many aggressive ads, not those with deliberately complex javascript. And you put ads because of constraints, not because you choose it.

I can't deny I've seen overly complicated websites, even without the ads, however. Most company websites are like this. Can be annoying if they also have access to more informative/technical webpages.

[hex11]

vadrig4r said:

I enjoyed using www/links on freebsd if you're looking for a minimal, text-based browser. I'm sure it can be found on other systems too.

Yeah that one is nice. I tend to use it in graphical mode, and Lynx for text mode stuff. Lynx used to be in OpenBSD base system, but they kicked it out of the tree a few releases ago due to code concerns, soon after the OpenSSL "heartbleed" bug was discovered. I guess Lynx shares some of the same design issues, having originated in the days of DOS and other systems nobody uses or cares about anymore, so lots of questionable cruft in the code to support those ancient OS. Probably nothing as outright bad as OpenSSL though, which should have been squeeky clean, since it's entire purpose is to provide security. But anyway, Lynx (now available as a port/package) recently got pledge support in OpenBSD, so that should help (pledge is a sort of "jail" type thing, for restricting processes to a whitelist of system calls).

40oz said:

I was hoping this would be like dotims where website URLs in the future will be able to be browsed in doom in the form of wad files.

That reminds me of a story I read back around the time Commodore went bankrupt. A bunch of Amiga democoders were chatting on BBS about how much cooler everything would have been if C= didn't drop the ball and release such a shitty AA chipset that was only marginally better than VGA (except for 3D, where it sucked because of bitplanes). Anyway their vision was that they'd be instead chatting while floating in cyberspace, looking at animated 3D models of each other (so more like Neuromancer or Snow Crash type stuff, not so much skype and other boring things). Yeah, too bad none of that happened, and we instead got lots of boring enterprise software and bloated websites (that sometimes try to infect you with malware).

Doomkid said:

(...) will crawl just like single JPG images did back in the 56k era. I find it weird how these things always tend to use quite a bit more than is necessary rather than finding an efficient way to do things.

I vaguely remember browsing the web with a 28.8K modem around 1995-6 and it not being that slow. Downloading big files could take some time though, but unless a web page was full of big images, it wasn't that bad. Heck, check the size of the images on this old Quake site from that era. They look like thumbnails now, but no that was the full image (screen resolution was also typically 800x600, but even 640x480 wasn't that uncommon once you leave the "gaming rig" zone).
https://www.quaddicted.com/webarchive/hosted.planetquake.gamespy.com/spq2/quake1/index.htm

As for "finding an efficient way" (today), I don't think that's going to happen because I just recently talked to a web-dev instructor and he basically pushes things like wordpress and all kinds of inefficient tools that make it easy and quick to build something, but with nasty side-effects. His reasoning is he's only got about 9 months to take someone with zero programming experience and teach everything from basic algorithms to databases, etc. So there's simply not enough time?

XCOPY said:

it's 2016, internet is fast nowadays. get with the times bro.

It's not just about speed though. Aside from the bandwidth caps and/or metered plans, there's also the general impression that nobody gives a damn anymore to make pages that actually work in text mode browser, or even lightweight graphical browser (just HTML+CSS). So that means the client needs a big fat browser, which means more potential for security holes.

Also, I find most graphical browsers and overly fancy websites just plain uncomfortable to use. It's better when they make sites that work with "any browser". There was once (even just 10 years ago) some level of awareness about this, but now it's largely forgotten.

http://anybrowser.org/campaign/

[Doomkid]

XCOPY said:

it's 2016, internet is fast nowadays. get with the times bro.

Lmao, if only laying out an entirely new network infrastructure for an entire nation was that easy! Actually I'm glad it isn't too easy, else I'd be out of a job, but still - We're looking at a few years at least until fiberoptic speed is at every neighborhood's network pillar, let alone to each person's premises.

[snapshot]

XCOPY said:

it's 2016, internet is fast nowadays. get with the times bro.

Not where i live .

[Graf Zahl]

XCOPY said:

it's 2016, internet is fast nowadays. get with the times bro.

Reality check: For many people internet is NOT fast.
It is this kind of ignorance that leads to inefficiencies that hog unnecessary bandwidth.

And even on a fast connection, a website that pops up immediately and is responsive still beats Javascripted menus that more often than not fail to work.

I find it amazing how the scripted content increases while at the same time the usability of many websites has massively decreased. Most web magazines or newspaper sites these days have become close to unusable, because it takes several seconds to download all the shit they want to use.

[Linguica]

Vilifying Javascript as a whole in 2016 is silly, and refusing to use it for web stuff is self defeating.

[Aliotroph?]

Graf Zahl said:

And even on a fast connection, a website that pops up immediately and is responsive still beats Javascripted menus that more often than not fail to work.

JS menus aren't slowing anything down. JS is not sufficiently slow that regular use of it for UI elements reduces page responsiveness. Appropriate use of JS increases page responsiveness and usability. For example, some kinds of validation can be done locally instead of sending a request over a slow connection to the server and waiting for it to respond with an error.

Those news sites are slow because they load content from just about every ad server, analytics tracker, and social media platform out there. The connections to those other servers are always the thing that takes the longest. Many sites also host their JS libraries somewhere else, so a third party server can delay loading of scripts.

Then there are the sites that load more content when you scroll or push a button. They don't ever seem to unload the ones outside the viewport, and browsers get slower, and slower. Loading over 1000 images in Firefox eventually seems to break it. There may be a reliable way to make a page that behaves like that without crippling a browser, but even Facebook hasn't bothered to try yet. Google seems to unload images from their search results when you scroll them far enough out of sight. The funny thing is Google also limits image searches to a very small pool now. It disappoints me that I can't put in something generic like "flower" and scroll through a billion images.

My point with all this babbling is the technology is mostly pretty good and getting better (I used CSS to remove some crappy JS from a site recently); the problem is getting people to use tools in a way that works best. This is always the problem.

[Graf Zahl]

Aliotroph? said:

JS menus aren't slowing anything down. JS is not sufficiently slow that regular use of it for UI elements reduces page responsiveness. Appropriate use of JS increases page responsiveness and usability. For example, some kinds of validation can be done locally instead of sending a request over a slow connection to the server and waiting for it to respond with an error.

Of course I was talking about the downsides of improper JS use. Isn't that the actual problem here that causes all the bloat?

After all it had become bad enough for tools like NoScript being developed.