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

Mildly Infuriating

41330 readers
895 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 61 points 1 week ago (2 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.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not all frameworks are bad

The problem is the devs/owners not understanding basic fundamentals. They could see a major financial benefit if they make the page snappy and light but apparently no one at these companies realizes that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 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 (8 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.

[–] 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 (7 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 (3 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.

[–] LunarLoony@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

People do stuff in JavaScript that you really don't need JavaScript for. You don't need JS to display a store listing, for instance. Or a news page, or documentation, or even a search engine

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

As a web dev, I'll say that yes, it is achievable. The problem isn't what's possible, but that we've trained new frontend devs in certain ways and given them certain tools. Those tools are being used in places they shouldn't, and those same new frontend devs are failing to learn the fundamentals of HTTP and HTML.

React, for example, is a JavaScript framework that's become incredibly popular in recent years. It's meant for "single page applications". I once made a control panel for a vacuum former with it, where you could turn on zones of heating and get the temperature updated in real time. You're not expected to navigate away from that page while you're using it. I think this is a good place to use React, though you could make the argument that it should be a native GUI app. (I'll say that it isn't that important; this thing runs fine on a Raspberry Pi 3, which is the target platform).

React is not a good option for an ecommerce site. You want to click on a product to check out its details. That means you're going between very different views (pages) a lot. React increases complexity with no clear gain. An argument can be made for the address/payment/finalization steps. The money people like that because there's a strong correlation between streamlining checkout and how often cash ends up in their hands.

A lot of those sites use React, anyway, for everything. Why? Because we've trained a bunch of new frontend devs so much on it that they have no idea how to make a site without React. This overspecialization has been detrimental.

load more comments (3 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.

load more comments (12 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.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago

You want to see terrible try looking at the network tab in inspect element

"Modern" pages load hundreds of large assets instead of keeping it smaller and clean.

its also cdn on cdn nobody does local libraries anymore

load more comments (1 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 (8 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.

many websites rely on JavaScript,

which is the problem that most people don't understand the concept of graceful degradation

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

website wouldn't need to embed any JS code.

other than the 20 trackers and ad scripts.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 10 points 1 week ago (13 children)

Most websites out there could work fine without JavaScript. They rely on it because they can't be bothered to be better.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Azzu@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There's a difference between "wouldn't work" and "wouldn't work as nicely". That's what this post is about :D Most websites would still work in the same basic way without js.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

OP really muddled the waters by writing:

exactly as it does with javascript turned on

That's obviously impossible and wouldn't be degraded.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 15 points 1 week ago (5 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.

[–] the_wiz@feddit.org 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

JavaScript is needed to actually build anything useful

Tell this to the people who build things you would call today a "Webapp" with CGI written in C.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

JavaScript is needed to actually build anything useful

Not even close. I wrote a management system for the keyfobs at my makerspace. I had some JavaScript in there previously for things like loading up logs with pagination over ajax calls or searching for members by name. I took all that out and made it straight server side HTML. It's fast, takes minimal browser memory, and the back button works with zero fuss.

Just try making an application that way sometime. Yes, you can find places for targeted use of JavaScript, but every web dev should at least try making a project without it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Graceful degradation - pfft.

Progressive enhancement - yeah!

[–] moseschrute@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Graceful degradation is for people that are angry about the future. Progressive enhancement is for people that respect the past. And it’s stupid to not hire someone only because they don’t know a term that you know.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mobotsar@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

To balance it out, I made it so that my web pages fail to load if JavaScript is turned on. Yes, really.

Okay, I guess technically it shows a message that says "Turn off JS, dummy!", but it's the same in spirit.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'm sure your 12 users really appreciate how edgy that is

load more comments (5 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.

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 week ago

I've had news articles not work without javascript. (unpaywalled as well).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lena@gregtech.eu 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

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

[–] candyman337@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Depending on the web app, the real solution would be a much more simplified JavaScript free version

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] kieron115@startrek.website 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I thought graceful degradation in terms of web design was mostly just to promote using the latest current browser features but to allow it to fall back to the feature set of, say, 1 or 2 previous browser versions. Not to support a user completely turning off a feature that has been around for literal decades? I think what you're promoting is the "opposite" side, progressive enhancement, where the website should mostly work through the most basic, initial features and then have advanced features added later for supported browsers.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not OP, But welcome to my TED talk.

Supporting disabled JavaScript is a pretty significant need for accessibility features. None of the text browsers supported JavaScript until 2017, and there's still a lot of old tech out there that doesn't deal well with it.

It wasn't until the rise of react and angular that this became a big deal. But, It's extremely common now to send most of the website as code. And even scrapers now support JavaScript.

There's no "minor point" clause on the term graceful degredation. At the same time, there's no minimum requirement. Would it be good to be thorough and provide a static page? I'd say yes but it's not like anyone is going to do that anymore.

The tables have turned, You can no longer live without JavaScript and now you need browsers that lie about your screen resolution, agent and your plugins because mega corps can sniff who you are by the slightest whiff of your configs.

And that's NOT pretty cool

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal@lemmy.today 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not even possible to reply to this post using the Lemmy Web UI without having Javascript enabled; the reply button doesn't function without Javascript.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Borger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 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

Not agreeing or disagreeing, but why?

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago (3 children)

JavaScript is directly related to almost everything that makes browser tabs take up more RAM than a typical PC in 1998. There are ways to use it in targeted ways that improve responsiveness (objectively or subjectively). The web as it stands is so far beyond that justification that it's almost laughable to even bring it up.

I run a personal blog with zero JavaScript; just HTML, CSS, and some pictures. Firefox's memory snapshot says it uses <3MB on the homepage. Amazon's homepage is currently giving me 38MB, and this comment section with the Alexandrite frontend is giving me 30MB. Those two may even be at the low end of what's out there.

[–] Borger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh yeah. There’s no doubt that modern web tech stacks are inefficient slop - patchwork built upon patchwork.

However, JS has been included in every major browser for well over a decade. It’s industry standard at this point, so I found the position of expecting commercial services to be backwards compatible with a 1998 browser setup a little odd.

What do you think about WebGL apps?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Shanmugha@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it should also work without browser exactly as it does with a browser

[–] xep@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago

Some surely know, they just don't care.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›