this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
269 points (89.0% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

41330 readers
912 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/ExplicitContent


-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:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


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
 

i absolutely hate how the modern web just fails to load if one has javascript turned off. i, as a user, should be able to switch off javascript and have the site work exactly as it does with javascript turned on. it's not a hard concept, people.

but you ask candidates to explain "graceful degradation" and they'll sit and look at you with a blank stare.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

it’s not a hard concept, people.

Depends. Webapps are a thing, and without JavaScript, there isn't much to show at all.

Websites that mostly serve static content though? Yeah. Some of them can't even implement a basic one-line message that asks to turn on JavaScript; just a completely white page, even though the data is there. I blame the multiple "new framework every week" approach. Doubly so for sites that starts loading, actually shows the content, and then it loads some final element that just cover everything up.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It depends. Inertia.js can pre-render pages server side, so you don't need JavaScript to see the content.

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

React can do SSR, too. The issue is that some sites actually means nothing if not dynamic. It makes sense to have SSR and sprinkle some JS on the client for content delivery, no issue there.

[–] swelter_spark@reddthat.com 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Love it when a page loads, and it's just a white blank. Like, you didn't even try. Do I want to turn JS on or close the tab? Usually, I just close the tab and move on. Nothing I need to see here.

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

React tutorial are like that. You create a simple HTML page with a script and the script generates everything.

I had to do a simple webpage for an embedded webserver and the provider of the library recommended preact, the lightweight version of react. Having no webdev experience, I used preact as recommended and it is a nightmare to use and debug.

[–] swelter_spark@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago

So that's why.

[–] Sertou@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The web isn't just HTML and server side scripting anymore. A modern website uses Javascript for many key essentials of the site's operation. I'm not saying that's always a good thing, but it is a true thing.

It is no longer a reasonable expectation that a website work with JavaScript disabled in the browser. Most of the web is now in content management systems that use JavaScript for browser support, accessibility, navigation, search, analytics and many aspects of page rendering and refreshing.

The web isn't just HTML and server side scripting anymore. A modern website uses Javascript for many key essentials of the site's operation.

which is why the modern web is garbage

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 days ago

Ibuild pretty feature heavy CMS type sites, and though I always try to go HTML only first (I'm quite old school still), it's almost impossible to escape JavaScript

Having said that, the entire "my website won't even show anything on the landing page without JavaScript" should die a quick death already

[–] python@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I only figured this out like, a month ago! I only became a frontend dev when I got shifted into a new team at work, so I came in with zero prior knowledge and have been using exclusively React and Typescript since Day 1. Didn't even know how to add a css class to something or what tags beside <div> html has until I started a personal project, ran into performance issues (while hosting it in a shitty aws free tier micro t2 lol) and started investigating why my code loads 3MB of Javascript every time I refresh the page.

I'm working on getting better at it in my personal project, might even try kicking React out entirely and seeing whether just Laravel Blade + Livewire already does everything I need. No way that I'm rocking the boat at work tho.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Blame the ui frameworks like react for this. It’s normalized a large cross-section of devs not learning anything about how a server works. They’ve essentially grown up with a calculator without ever having to learn long division.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

You’re correct, and I’m going to explain how this happens. I’m not justifying that it happens, just explaining it.

It isn’t that no one knows what graceful degradation is anymore. It’s that they don’t try to serve every browser that’s existed since the beginning of time.

When you develop software, you have to make some choices about what clients you’re going to support, because you then need to test for all those clients to ensure you haven’t broken their experience.

With ever-increasing demands for more and more software delivery to drive ever greater business results, developers want to serve as few clients as possible. And they know exactly what clients their audience use - this is easy to see and log.

This leads to conversations like: can we drop browser version X? It represents 0.4% of our audience but takes the same 10% of our testing effort as the top browser.”

And of course the business heads making the demands on their time say yes, because they don’t want to slow down new projects by 10% over 0.4% of TAM. The developers are happy because it’s less work for them and fewer bizarre bugs to deal with from antiquated software.

Not one person in this picture will fight for your right to turn off JavaScript just because you have some philosophy against it. It’s really no longer the “scripting language for animations and interactivity” on top of HTML like it used to be. It’s the entire application now. 🤷‍♂️

If it helps you to blame the greedy corporate masters who want to squeeze more productivity out of their engineering group, then think that. It’s true. But it’s also true that engineers don’t want to work with yesteryear’s tech or obscure client cases, because that experience isn’t valuable for their career.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Most don't even know @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark/light), rather cobble something with JS that works half of the time and needs buttons to toggle.

[–] python@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bookmarking this, so far I've cobbled my Dark/Light Mode switch together with Material-UI themes, but this seems like the cleaner way to do this that I've been searching for!

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago

Also note prefers-reduced-motion for accessibility.

[–] unmagical@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A button to toggle is good design, but it should just default to your system preferences.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] XM34@feddit.org 41 points 1 week ago (8 children)

If it's a standard webpage that only displays some static content, then sure.

But everything that needs to be interactive (and I'm talking about actual interactivity here, not just navigation) requires Javascript and it's really not worth the effort of implementing fallbacks for everything just so you can tell your two users who actually get to appreciate this effort that the site still won't work because the actual functionallity requires JavaScript.

It all comes down to what the customer is ready to pay for and usually they're not ready to pay for anything besides core functionallity. Heck, I'm having a hard enough time getting budget for all the legally required accessibility. And sure, some of that no script stuff pays into that as well, but by far not everything.

Stuff like file uploads, validated forms and drag and drop are just not worth the effort of providing them without JS.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago (8 children)

I don't know anything about web development but, is it really fair to say it should work exactly the same with JavaScript turned off? If that were achievable why would it be there in the first place? I assume the graceful degradation concept is supposed to be that as you strip away more and more layers of additional functionality, the core functions remain or at least some kind of explanation is given to the user why things don't work.

[–] dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it's not a hard concept, it is an impossible concept.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (12 children)

I wrote my CV site in React and Next.js configured for SSG (Static Site Generation) which means that the whole site loads perfectly without JavaScript, but if you do have JS enabled you'll get a theme switching and print button.

That said, requiring JS makes sense on some sites, namely those that act more like web apps that let you do stuff (like WhatsApp or Photopea). Not for articles, blogs etc. though.

[–] bradboimler@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I did mine in plain old HTML. No JavaScript.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It's worse than this even. I have an old Raspberry Pi 3B+ (1G) that I got in 2018. I hooked it up the other day to mess around with it, it's been maybe 2 years since I did anything with it, ever since I got a Pi 4 (4G). 1 gigabyte of RAM is now insufficient to browse the web. The machine freezes when loading any type of interactive site. Web dev is now frameworks piled on frameworks with zero consideration for overhead and it's pure shit. Outrageous.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Funny, from my standpoint, more functional JavaScript almost always feels like service degradation - as in, the more I block, the better and the faster the website runs.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moseschrute@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

I’ve spent the last year building a Lemmy and PieFed client that requires JavaScript. This dependency on JavaScript allows me to ship you 100% static files, which after being fully downloaded, have 0 dependency on a web server. Without JavaScript, my cost of running web servers would be higher, and if I stopped paying for those servers, the client would stop working immediately. Instead, I chose to depend heavily on JavaScript which allows me to ship a client that you can fully download, if you choose, and run on your own computer.

As far as privacy, when you download my Threadiverse client* and inspect network requests, you will see that most of the network requests it makes are to the Lemmy/PieFed server you select. The 2 exceptions being any images that aren’t proxied via Lemmy/PieFed, and when you login, I download a list of the latest Lemmy servers. If I relied on a web server for rendering instead of JavaScript, many more requests would be made with more opportunities to expose your IP address.

I truly don’t understand where all this hate for JavaScript comes from. Late stage capitalism, AI, and SAS are ruining the internet, not JavaScript. Channel your hate at big tech.

*I deliver both web and downloadable versions of my client. The benefits I mentioned require the downloaded version. But JavaScript allows me to share almost 100% code between the web and downloaded versions. In the future, better PWA support will allow me to leverage some of these benefits on web.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (26 children)

I, as a user, should be able to switch off javascript and have the site work exactly as it does with javascript turned on.

I mean… many websites rely on JavaScript, so it's kind of obvious that they don't work without it. If it would work without JS in the first place, the website wouldn't need to embed any JS code.

load more comments (26 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (7 children)

JavaScript is needed to actually build anything useful. It is way easier to maintain and when done properly it can be very fast to load and use.

The problem with today's web is that pages are extremely inefficient and bloated. You can keep the same UI just don't try to use every framework and library under the sun. Also it would be nice if people actually formated assets properly instead of using tons of large images and other assets.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Graceful degradation - pfft.

Progressive enhancement - yeah!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lena@gregtech.eu 12 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Fair, some websites do need JavaScript though. Such as webapps. Could they be server-side rendered?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I don't know how you're gonna get everything to work without JavaScript. You can't do a lot of interactivity stuff without it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›