For one, whatever Tim Berner's Lee envisoned, the web is not the simple mostly textual medium it was in 1993. Get over it.
Second, for people to love reading text on the web, there was never a better time than the present. Lots of long form text by bloggers and content providers like Medium etc, combined with a widespread interest in improved readability and good typography. Plus, the fashion/preference for "minimalist" designs also helps putting emphasis on the content, even better than some 1997 site with animated gifs and black text on grey.
The universal reply to "get over it" is "if it's a problem for me, then it's a problem". Are you sure there's no grain of truth in the complaints about today's dynamic Web? How about this critique, which is hopefully more articulate? http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-Nov...
IMO, browser plugins were the way forward. You can have all the fancy stuff that modern computers can do, like Google Maps or even Quake Live, and at the same time most of the web can stay simple.
Well, the Flash plugin has become less popular because many developers disliked it and decided to bet on the open web instead. IMO that was for shortsighted ideological reasons. As far as I know, browser plugins are the only way to have truly decentralized innovation on the Web. Anyone can make a plugin and offer it to users. If plugins are discouraged, then a handful of browser makers become gatekeepers of all new functionality. It may seem okay now because some browser makers are seen as good guys, like Mozilla and Google, but we all remember the time when the biggest browser maker wasn't seen as a good guy, and that can happen again.
What are your arguments against plugins? I'm curious.
What? If you want to expose new rich functionality to web apps, you need to do it separately on each platform anyway, whether it's in a plugin or in the core browser. Plugin developers seem to be okay with paying that price. The iPhone doesn't have Flash because Apple doesn't want web developers to make rich apps and divert users from the app store, not because of implementation difficulties.
Comments
Why people keep saying this kind of stuff?
For one, whatever Tim Berner's Lee envisoned, the web is not the simple mostly textual medium it was in 1993. Get over it.
Second, for people to love reading text on the web, there was never a better time than the present. Lots of long form text by bloggers and content providers like Medium etc, combined with a widespread interest in improved readability and good typography. Plus, the fashion/preference for "minimalist" designs also helps putting emphasis on the content, even better than some 1997 site with animated gifs and black text on grey.
The universal reply to "get over it" is "if it's a problem for me, then it's a problem". Are you sure there's no grain of truth in the complaints about today's dynamic Web? How about this critique, which is hopefully more articulate? http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-Nov...
Are you sure there's no grain of truth in the complaints about today's dynamic Web?
Of course there are. But no-one has really articulated an alternative vision. That post certainly doesn't.
That post's alternative vision is something that already existed not so long ago, you can learn about it in as much detail as you want...
So we throw away all scripting? No more Google Maps? Doesn't sound very realistic to me.
IMO, browser plugins were the way forward. You can have all the fancy stuff that modern computers can do, like Google Maps or even Quake Live, and at the same time most of the web can stay simple.
Well, that's a terrible idea. Why do you think so many plugins are being phased out?
Well, the Flash plugin has become less popular because many developers disliked it and decided to bet on the open web instead. IMO that was for shortsighted ideological reasons. As far as I know, browser plugins are the only way to have truly decentralized innovation on the Web. Anyone can make a plugin and offer it to users. If plugins are discouraged, then a handful of browser makers become gatekeepers of all new functionality. It may seem okay now because some browser makers are seen as good guys, like Mozilla and Google, but we all remember the time when the biggest browser maker wasn't seen as a good guy, and that can happen again.
What are your arguments against plugins? I'm curious.
Primary argument against plugins is that they have to be remade for every platform. See: the iPhone not having Flash.
What? If you want to expose new rich functionality to web apps, you need to do it separately on each platform anyway, whether it's in a plugin or in the core browser. Plugin developers seem to be okay with paying that price. The iPhone doesn't have Flash because Apple doesn't want web developers to make rich apps and divert users from the app store, not because of implementation difficulties.