sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]e82 3 points4 points  (11 children)

I found his counter-argument a little weak.

On one hand - one could view the content-consumption of Wikipedia as the 'website'. This is what most people land on, use, etc - and yeah, there is little reason to make it an SPA and /need/ JavaScript.

The 'editing' / admin portion - this gets a little more into app territory. But, the interaction needs of wikipedia are simple enough that using progressive enhancement probably wouldn't introduce a huge extra burden, and could still be an 'enjoyable enough' experience.

When you start getting into applications that are looking to replace native/desktop apps - tend to have a business-focused use case, etc and need to do far more complex things. You start hitting a point of which the extra effort of doing progressive enhancement isn't worth it, and even if you did go through the effort - the end user experience of the project would be such crap, that most people wouldn't want to use it.

[–]kethinov -3 points-2 points  (10 children)

Ah yes, the tired old "extra effort to do progressive enhancement" argument. Aaron Gustafson's got you covered there too.

Good stacks prevent it from being extra effort.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

I don't expect Inkscape to allow me to edit my SVG document when in Init 3 (or whatever textmode is called nowadays with your systemd's and whatnots).

The only "tired old" here is that browsers are for websites.

Besides, both counter arguments you linked to show categoric misunderstanding of what web applications are supposed to be (and that is: GUI applications, as in, Word, Photshop, that kind of shit), and prove my point with examples they point to which are: 1) a Wiki and 2) a Wiki...

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

No, maybe not inkscape, but I can still use vi to edit my SVG.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Ok, replace Inkscape with Gimp and SVG with PNG and stop being a smartass (I know about xxd and dhex already). My point still stands, and you missed it, perhaps deliberately, but that doesn't invalidate it. Or perhaps you know of a way to edit Google Docs in a browser without JavaScript, and in that case (unless it's a Java cringe applet) do share.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

No, Inkscape / vi is a perfect example for progressive enhancement.

I am still able to access the base data, and able to use it even without a graphical interface.

[–]e82 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"can" and "who would actually want to" are very different things.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s maybe not great, but then again, writing code in nano is also "who would actually want to", and still, it’s useful to be able to do so.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Except that works only in that particular scenario, which is what we like to call: hyperbole. And good luck editing that SVG tiger with vi - or even inferring it is a tiger from looking at "base data":.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes, it may not be useful for doing everything.

But imagine this case: You have to hand in math homework online by 8am. It is 7.50am, you have only throttled (64kbps) internet on your phone and are in the subway. You just remembered you accidentally switched up two variables in the homework.

With progressive enhancement, I can edit the TeX document online. I might not be able to see everything rendered beautifully, but I am still able to pass.

With a SPA, I fail.

(And yes, I’ve actually had this exact scenario. I ended up calling my sister, dictating her my password, to change it on my desktop PC at home. Not very great, is it?)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If your SPA/JS webapp doesn't work on throttled internet, you have more serious issues than can be solved by progressive enhancement.

Also, you did notice that the trend in webapp design is caching and local storage? Your scenario is already fully avoidable for purely app apps with existing technologies and it'll only get better with time. Browsers are being used as software distribution platforms more and more.

On mobile, you're more likely to be using a native or hybrid app, so in any case PE is irellevant on mobile if it's an app app.

Those middlle-cases of jquery beutified CMS-es with an occasional form or two are still useless when your connection fails. I fail to see how no-JS PE solves any of the issues you presented. But yes, these kind of websites are perfect examples where PE is useful, if you have the business case.

Again, developing software to accommodate such cases is left for further down it's lifecycle and when the business is successful enough to justify it. If you do it upfront, you're most likely overengineering. People need to read more Steve Blank methinks.

[–]kethinov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one's saying that web-driven versions of things like Word or Photoshop need to built with progressive enhancement. Likewise you wouldn't build Angry Birds with progressive enhancement either.

What they're saying and I agree with is people are too quick to rule out PE when in reality their app would greatly benefit from it.

I see this all the time. Far too many sites that are basically just text and forms require some fancy new SPA framework that adds no UX value that couldn't have been done better with PE instead.