loading...

re: Webdevs! Are we on the right track? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Interestingly, you could have made the same point in computer graphics in the 80ies/90ies. But was anybody forced to stay VGA? Only to show how cra...
 

Yes I used "we" wrongly. I mentioned "(some of)" or "majority of us" in few places but couldn't mention like this everywhere I wrote "we".
You are right that we have to move forward with technology like we moved from VGA. But people who can't afford today's high-end graphics still has the option to buy a VGA phone and play snake. But web is a single platform. If we move forward on this track, WWW may become something only for people who can afford to buy such high-end device. And since hardware and software companies are always on competition, they will have no objection rolling out more and more expensive devices every quarter. I am using a somewhat modern smartphone (although a budget one and 2 years old), yet it crashes on so many sites. I don't think this was WWW all about.

There are developers and companies that focus a lot on user experience and try to cover as much users as possible regardless of what device they use. But my concern is that it's not followed by everyone who builds websites that strictly. The modern frameworks and evolving technologies also do not focus on this area that strictly. We have been given the freedom to use unlimited processing in client-side. There's no limit or warning popup on this from the framework.

It's up-to us, developers to test what we build on common devices, but we are not required to. Hence, most often we (objective) don't. And this made me doubt the track we are on.

 

If we move forward on this track, WWW may become something only for people who can afford to buy such high-end device.

The implicit question is another: When businesses lay their focus on users of high end devices, wouldn't that exclude users? To that question, the answer is definitively: yes.

But that is not a problem of using fat clients and rich user experience - because there is already an audience for that. The solution would be to deliver your site in several versions depending on the target device. I see no problem having a powerful device and a good connection seeing the resources used.

It is a problem of business adressing those people and broaden the expierence overall.

yet it crashes on so many sites. I don't think this was WWW all about

This is a subjective problem, which I can not say anything but the useless counter statement: I have no such problems.

But at least, you are right: the web was not about crashing sites.

But my concern is that it's not followed by everyone who builds websites that strictly

I tend to agree. But I see this as a responsibility of said companies.

There's no limit or warning popup on this from the framework.
I do not understand: Why should it?

Hence, most often we (objective) don't. And this made me doubt the track we are on.

As I said above, the question you are raising is not:
Are we on the wrong track.
No I think we aren't!

But more of: Should we offer multiple tracks to ride upon.
Yes, I think so.

The solution would be to deliver your site in several versions depending on the target device.

This is exactly what we need. Modern tech and frameworks should really consider improving in this area. If the low-end device users has a option to load a fully functional (and practical) website, no matter how ugly it is, then it would be the time to add bloats as optional features for high-end users.

Wikipedia is a good example of a practical site that's for everyone. Gmail is another example of a great site because it provides the flexibility to "load basic HTML". So it's also for everyone.

Code of Conduct Report abuse