this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
300 points (93.6% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
42134 readers
600 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People in this thread who aren't web devs: "web devs are just lazy"
Web devs: Alright buddy boy, you try making a web site these days with the required complexity with only HTML and CSS. π All you'd get is static content and maybe some forms. Any kind of interactivity goes out the door.
Non web devs: "nah bruh this site is considered broken for the mere fact that it uses JavaScript at all"
It's not about using js or not, it's about failing gracefully. An empty page instead of a simple written article is not acceptable.
An empty page isn't great, I would indeed agree with that.
Stop, can only get so erect. Give me that please than the bullshit I have to wade trough today to find information. When is the store open. E-mailadress/phone. Like fuck if I want to engage
π Fβck, I hear you loud and clear on that one. But that's a different problem altogether, organizing information.
People suck at that. I don't think they ever even use their own site or have it tested on anyone before shipping. Sometimes it's absolutely impossible to find information about something, like even what a product even is or does. So stupid.
You can say fuck on the internet
I also have the right to self-censor myself for effect. ππ
That site is literally just static content. Yes JS is needed for interactivity, but there's none here
Virtually any form validation besides the basics HTML provides is enough to require JS, and input validation (paired with server-side validation ofc) saves both user frustration and bandwidth
Of course it depends, like all things. But in my mind, there's a few select, very specific types of pages that wouldn't require at least a bit of JavaScript these days. Very static, non-changing, non-interactive. Even email could work/has worked with HTML only. But the experience is severely limited and reduced, of course.
I would argue that a lot it scripting can and should be done server side.
That would make the website feel ultra slow since a full page load would be needed every time. Something as simple as a slide out menu needs JavaScript and couldn't really be done server side.
When if you said just send the parts of the page that changed, that dynamic content loading would still be JavaScript. Maybe an iframe could get you somewhere but that's a hacky work around and you couldn't interact between different frames
A slide out menu can be done in pure CSS and HTML. Imho, it would look bad regardless.
OP is trying to access a restaurant website that has no interactivity. It has a bunch of static information, a few download links for menu PDFs, a link to a different domain to place an order online, and an iframe (to a different domain) for making a table reservation.
The web dev using javascript on that page is lazy, yet also creating way more work for themself.
https://htmx.org/ solves the problem of full page loads. Yes, it's a JavaScript library, but it's a tiny JS library (14k over the wire) that is easily cached. And in most cases, it's the only JavaScript you need. The vast majority of content can be rendered server side.
While fair, now you have to have JavaScript enabled in the page which I think was the point. It was never able having only a little bit. It was that you had to have it enabled
Yes, it is unfortunate that this functionality is not built-in to HTML/browsers to begin with. The library is effectively a patch for the deficiencies of the original spec. Hopefully it can one day be integrated into HTML proper.
Until then, HTMX can still be used by browsers that block third party scripts, which is where a lot of the nasty stuff comes from anyway. And JS can be whitelisted on certain sites that are known to use it responsibly.
JS is just a janky hotfix.
As it was, HTML was all sites had. When these were called "ugly", CSS was invented for style and presentation stuff. When the need for advanced interactivity (not doable on Internet speeds of 20-30 years ago), someone just said "fuck it, do whatever you want" and added scripting to browsers.
The real solution came in the form of HTML5. You no longer needed, and I can't stress this enough, Flash to play a video in-browser. For other things as well.
Well, HTML5 is over 15 years old by now. And maybe the time has come to bring in new functionality into either HTML, CSS or a new, third component of web sites (maybe even JS itself?)
Stuff like menus. There's no need for then to be limited by the half-assed workaround known as CSS pseudoclasses or for every website to have its own JS implementation.
Stuff like basic math stuff. HTML has had forms since forever. Letting it do some more, like counting down, accessing its equivalent of the Date and Math classes, and tallying up a shopping cart on a webshop seems like a better fix than a bunch of frameworks.
Just make a standardized "framework" built directly into the browser - it'd speed up development, lower complexity, reduce bloat and increase performance. And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.
A lot of this interactivity is complete bullshit, especially on sites that are mostly just for static data like news articles or blog posts, the JS is there for advertisement and analytics and social media, tracking and other bullshit.
The fastest and smoothest websites are usually personal blogs of software engineers, no ads, no social media, no tracking, no pointless comments threads and no gimmicky UI animations, just text and images and if they do add interactive components it's usually done in a good way
News site dev here. Iβll never build a site for this company that relies on js for anything other than video playback (yay hls patents, and they wonβt let me offer mp4 as an alternative because preroll pays our bills, despite everyone feeling entitled to free news with no ads)
What country or area would that be?
And what do you mean by "do it"? What is it exactly that you do or make without JavaScript?
Also the EU and technically a lot of US sites that provide services to or for the government have similar requirements. The latter is largely unenforced though unless you're interacting with states that also have accessibility laws.
And honestly a ton of sites that should be covered by these requirements just don't care or get rubber stamped as compliant. Because unless someone actually complains they don't have a reason to care.
I kind of thought the EU requirements that have some actual penalties would change this indifference but other than some busy accessibility groups helping people that already care, I haven't heard a lot about enforcement that would suggest it's actually changed.
That's excellent.
And what do you make that doesn't include JavaScript? Like what kind of software/website/content? If you don't mind sharing, of course.
It doesn't have to not include JavaScript, that would be quite difficult and unreasonable. Accessible sites are not about limiting functionality but providing the same functionality.
I haven't gone fully down the rabbit hole on this but my understanding is even something like Nuxt if you follow best practices will deliver HTML that can be interacted with and serve individual pages.
That said, screen readers and other support shouldn't require running without any JavaScript. Having used them to test sites that might be the smart approach but they actually have a lot of tools for announcing dynamic website changes that are built into ARIA properties at the HTML level so very flexible. There are of course also JavaScript APIs for announcing changes.
They just require additional effort and forethought to implement and can be buggy if you do really weird things.
I think we're on the same page here. Your reply seems to me to argue against the people who are completely against JavaScript and who treat its very presence like a complete site-breaking bug. I am not of their opinion either. But I do sympathize with the sentiment that it is being used for evil.
Yeah, I don't think that's what the screenshot shows though since there's no content at all π
Not even a noscript tag at all or anything, yeah. Very bad.
Good stuff!
Those things are super important, IMO. For sure. Important services for society.
Making a static site is a piece of piss. There are even generators on npm.
Not sure that was the issue. I mean more that if you use only HTML and CSS all you'll be able to create would be static sites that only change the contents of the page by full reloads. π
Thereβs this ancient thing called the LAMP stack. Most of the web runs it, and what it does will blow your mind.
Yep, I remember that. (I'm old.)
I'll take an API and a curl call over JavaScript any day of the week.
If I didn't input it myself with a punch card I refuse to run it.
π that do be what they sound like
I unironically use Lynx from my home lab s when I'm ssh'd in snce it's headless. Sometimes at work I miss the simplicity. I used to use Pine for Gmail as well. π
it sounds like you're saying there's an easy solution to get websites that don't have shit moving on you nonstop with graphics and non-content frames taking up 60% of the available screen
it's crazy that on a 1440p monitor, I still can't just see all the content I want on one screen. nope, gotta show like 20% of it and scroll for the rest. and even if you zoom out, it will automatically resize to keep proportion, it won't show any of the other 80%
I'm not a web dev. but I am a user, and I know the experience sucks.
if I'm looking at the results of a product search and I see five results at a time because of shitty layout, I just don't buy from that company
I had a bit of trouble following that first paragraph. I don't understand what it is that you say it sounds like I'm saying.
Either way, none of what you wrote I disagree with. I feel the same. Bad design does not elicit trust.
I'm saying your point about static content being all we would get sounds great
lol, no argument here, to be fair π
A little paraphrased, but that's the gist.
Isn't there an article just today that talks about CSS doing most of the heavy-lifting java is usually crutched to do?
I did webdev before the framework blight. It was manual php, it was ASP, it was soul-crushing. That's the basis for my claim that javascript lamers are just lazy, and supply-chain splots waiting to manifest.
JavaScript you mean? Some small subset of things that JavaScript was forced to handle before can be done in CSS, yes, but that only goes for styling and layout, not interactivity, obviously.
There is some extremely heavy prejudice and unnecessary hate going on here, which is woefully misdirected. Well get to that. But the amount of time that has passed since you did web dev might put you at a disadvantage to make claims about web development these days. π
Anyway. Us JavaScript/TypeScript "lamers" are doing the best with what we've got. The web platform is very broken and fragmented because of its history. It's not something regular web devs can do much about. We use the framework or library that suits us best for the task at hand and the resources we are given (time, basically). It's not like any project will be your dream unicorn project where you get to decide the infrastructure from the start or get to invent a new library or a new browser to target that does things differently and doesn't have to be backwards compatible with the web at large. Things don't work this way.
Don't you think we sigh all day because we have to monkey patch the web to make our sites behave in the way the acceptance criteria demand? You call that lazy, but we are working our knuckles to the bone to make things work reasonably well for as many people as we can, including accessibility for those with reduced function. It's not an easy task.
... "Lazy." I scoffed in offense, to be honest with you.
It's like telling someone who made bread from scratch they're lazy for not growing their own wheat, ffs.
Let's see you do better. ππππππ