On The Verge

Quite a few people have been linking to an article on The Verge with the inflammatory title The Mobile web sucks. In it, Nilay Patel heaps blame upon mobile browsers, Safari in particular:

But man, the web browsers on phones are terrible. They are an abomination of bad user experience, poor performance, and overall disdain for the open web that kicked off the modern tech revolution.

Les Orchard says what we’re all thinking in his detailed response The Verge’s web sucks:

Calling out browser makers for the performance of sites like his? That’s a bit much.

Nilay does acknowledge that the Verge could do better:

Now, I happen to work at a media company, and I happen to run a website that can be bloated and slow. Some of this is our fault: The Verge is ultra-complicated, we have huge images, and we serve ads from our own direct sales and a variety of programmatic networks.

But still, it sounds like the buck is being passed along. The performance issues are being treated as Somebody Else’s Problem …ad networks, trackers, etc.

The developers at Vox Media take a different, and in my opinion, more correct view. They’re declaring performance bankruptcy:

I mean, let’s cut to the chase here… our sites are friggin’ slow, okay!

But I worry about how they can possibly reconcile their desire for a faster website with a culture that accepts enormously bloated ads and trackers as the inevitable price of doing business on the web:

I’m hearing an awful lot of false dichotomies here: either you can have a performant website or you have a business model based on advertising. Here’s another false dichotomy:

If the message coming down from above is that performance concerns and business concerns are fundamentally at odds, then I just don’t know how the developers are ever going to create a culture of performance (which is a real shame, because they sound like a great bunch). It’s a particularly bizarre false dichotomy to be foisting when you consider that all the evidence points to performance as being a key differentiator when it comes to making moolah.

It’s funny, but I take almost the opposite view that Nilay puts forth in his original article. Instead of thinking “Oh, why won’t these awful browsers improve to be better at delivering our websites?”, I tend to think “Oh, why won’t these awful websites improve to be better at taking advantage of our browsers?” After all, it doesn’t seem like that long ago that web browsers on mobile really were awful; incapable of rendering the “real” web, instead only able to deal with WAP.

As Maciej says in his magnificent presentation Web Design: The First 100 Years:

As soon as a system shows signs of performance, developers will add enough abstraction to make it borderline unusable. Software forever remains at the limits of what people will put up with. Developers and designers together create overweight systems in hopes that the hardware will catch up in time and cover their mistakes.

We complained for years that browsers couldn’t do layout and javascript consistently. As soon as that got fixed, we got busy writing libraries that reimplemented the browser within itself, only slower.

I fear that if Nilay got his wish and mobile browsers made a quantum leap in performance tomorrow, the result would be even more bloated JavaScript for even more ads and trackers on websites like The Verge.

If anything, browser makers might have to take more drastic steps to route around the damage of bloated websites with invasive tracking.

We’ve been here before. When JavaScript first landed in web browsers, it was quickly adopted for three primary use cases:

  1. swapping out images when the user moused over a link,
  2. doing really bad client-side form validation, and
  3. spawning pop-up windows.

The first use case was so popular, it was moved from a procedural language (JavaScript) to a declarative language (CSS). The second use case is still with us today. The third use case was solved by browsers. They added a preference to block unwanted pop-ups.

Tracking and advertising scripts are today’s equivalent of pop-up windows. There are already plenty of tools out there to route around their damage: Ghostery, Adblock Plus, etc., along with tools like Instapaper, Readability, and Pocket.

I’m sure that business owners felt the same way about pop-up ads back in the late ’90s. Just the price of doing business. Shrug shoulders. Just the way things are. Nothing we can do to change that.

For such a young, supposedly-innovative industry, I’m often amazed at what people choose to treat as immovable, unchangeable, carved-in-stone issues. Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.

Every bloated advertising and tracking script on a website was added by a person. What if that person refused? I guess that person would be fired and another person would be told to add the script. What if that person refused? What if we had a web developer picket line that we collectively refused to cross?

That’s an unrealistic, drastic suggestion. But the way that the web is being destroyed by our collective culpability calls for drastic measures.

By the way, the pop-up ad was first created by Ethan Zuckerman. He has since apologised. What will you be apologising for in decades to come?

Have you published a response to this? :

Responses

tinokremer.nl

Interesting piece from Jeremy Keith about The Verge’s statement mobile browsers suck: https://adactio.com/journal/9312

I totally agree. I can run The Verge reasonably fast by using NoScript and carefully removing a lot of crap I don’t need. I understand websites that are supposedly free need to make money somehow. I do not understand how anyone would let their website become such a useless mess caused by so much scripting and resources from all over the web. Sometimes the businessmodel itself or the way it’s implemented is just plain wrong. This is a good example in my opinion. That said, I do have a wishlist for Chrome on my Nexus 6, but that’s a whole different subject.

# Thursday, July 16th, 2015 at 7:00am

Jeremy Keith

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Andrew Smyk

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Anselm Hannemann

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Rob Weir

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by Rob Weir on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 1:08pm

Onyeka Aghanenu

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Glynn Smith

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Clemens S.

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by Clemens S. on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 1:15pm

Adam Bankin

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Baldur Bjarnason

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Neil Gateley

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Cliff Spence

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Tino Kremer

Interesting piece from Jeremy Keith about The Verge’s statement mobile browsers suck: https://adactio.com/journal/9312 I totally agree. I can run The Verge reasonably fast by using NoScript and carefully removing a lot of crap I don’t need. I understand websites that are supposedly free need to make money somehow. I do not understand how anyone would let their website become such a useless mess caused by so much scripting and resources from all over the web. Sometimes the businessmodel itself or the way it’s implemented is just plain wrong. This is a good example in my opinion. That said, I do have a wishlist for Chrome on my Nexus 6, but that’s a whole different subject.

Alex Carpenter

RT @paulrobertlloyd: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice.” Some good, necessary words from @adactio: adactio.com/journal/9312

Keir DuBois

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Scott Lawson

RT @paulrobertlloyd: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice.” Some good, necessary words from @adactio: adactio.com/journal/9312

to

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by to on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 3:03pm

Edward Stapleton

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Tony Pitale

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Tino

Interesting piece from Jeremy Keith about The Verge’s statement mobile browsers suck: https://adactio.com/journal/9312

I totally agree. I can run The Verge reasonably fast by using NoScript and carefully removing a lot of crap I don’t need. I understand websites that are supposedly free need to make money somehow. I do not understand how anyone would let their website become such a useless mess caused by so much scripting and resources from all over the web. Sometimes the businessmodel itself or the way it’s implemented is just plain wrong. This is a good example in my opinion. That said, I do have a wishlist for Chrome on my Nexus 6, but that’s a whole different subject.

Share this:

# Posted by Tino on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 4:01pm

Paul Hayes

RT @paulrobertlloyd: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice.” Some good, necessary words from @adactio: adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by Paul Hayes on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 5:00pm

Bram de Haan

RT @paulrobertlloyd: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice.” Some good, necessary words from @adactio: adactio.com/journal/9312

Christof

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by Christof on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 5:34pm

Donny Truong

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Larry Garfield

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Sven Albrecht

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

David Weber

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

fij

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by fij on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 9:20pm

Igor Czerwinski

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

About the Author: john v willshire

Cruise is to Adverts as Shatner is to Phones By: john v willshire On: July 27, 2015 In: marketing, rivetings Views: 88 Like Bobbing and weaving through the tweets an hour ago, I picked up on Jeremy‘s post on the issue of website performance vs serving ads/tracking people… …in fact, I really picked up on it because of Mark‘s reply: Which is interesting, because there’s something been pinging around my head recently about why the advertising industry decided on this as their future. And why did we as people decide that advertisers knowing all this about us was OK…? Here’s my hunch; Tom Cruise is to Adverts as William Shatner is to Phones. Which means what? Well, there’s the famous, perhaps apocryphal story that the mobile phone, specifically the flip phone, were inspired by the Star Trek communicator. The engineers growing up and watching telly around this time had a ready-made prototype of ‘the future’ in front of them… and so, it came to pass. Let’s make that. Another example – last week at IED, the brilliant Andres Colmenares was talking about the Hendo Hoverboard that’s received kickstarter funding. It’s basically the Marty McFly hoverboard. Let’s make that. And the advertising example? Minority Report, of course. Specifically the scene in which Tom Cruise goes hurtling through a crown of people in a shopping mall, and all the adverts start addressing him individually… You’ll know the scene, because no doubt everyone’s been shown it often enough in presentations about ‘personalised marketing’. It became so trite that people stop using it. It may even be cool and retro to start using it again (I’m not really sure, as I don’t do enough advertisingy type things anymore to know). Basically, it became a cultural shorthand; ‘This is a future for advertising’ became ‘this is the future for advertising’. When enough people can use it as a common reference point, they can sit in meetings and decided what advertising should be in the future by using this example. When people were talking about how the ads that would support their platform, they’d major on just how ‘identifiable’ people were, and so the ads could be personalised too. “You know, like in Minority Report”. And maybe that’s why we’re here. Thanks, Tom Cruise. Thanks a bunch. Share this:TwitterMoreFacebookLinkedInTumblrRedditEmailPrintPinterestGoogle Tags: About the Author: john v willshire Previous post:Delaminating Reality – a week at IED Barcelona Next Post: Logging In… Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Matt Halliday

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

blog.henrikcarlsson.se

→ Nilay Patel might be asshat of the week. – Adactio: Journal—On The Verge. EDIT As pointed out to me by Jeremy Keith on Twitter calling Patel an asshat was uncalled for. I do believe his article (Patel’s that is, not Keith’s) deserve harsh criticism for being such a backwards take on the problems with the mobile web, but the insults should have been thrown at the article, not Patel himself.My apologies to Nilay Patel. ∞ Do you have any comments? Feel free to @mention me on Twitter (@synvila) or e-mail me ([email protected]).

# Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 12:23am

Nathan Reed

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Russell Heimlich

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Daniel Bachhuber

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

bfulgham

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by bfulgham on Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 5:57am

Brady Eidson

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Adam Demasi (kirb)

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

John Crean

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by John Crean on Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 4:05pm

James Catt

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by James Catt on Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 5:36pm

James Frost

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Cameron Moll

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Jeremy McDuffie

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

R.A. Ray

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by R.A. Ray on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 3:20pm

Nathan Pointer

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Sam Howat

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by Sam Howat on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 4:22pm

Matt Nicolaysen

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Ahmed El Gabri

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Gethin James

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Alex Sutcliffe

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Mihkel Eidast

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Edmundo Santos

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Eric Steinborn

RT @jgarber: “Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” – @adactio adactio.com/journal/9312

Kevin Marks

I’m probably going to be apologising for Technorati and helping change writing on the web from a daily contemplation to a headlong rush for rapid, vapid responses.

roycifer

“For such a young, supposedly-innovative industry, I’m often amazed at what people choose to treat as immovable, unchangeable, carved-in-stone issues. Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.” https://adactio.com/journal/9312

# Posted by roycifer on Thursday, September 29th, 2016 at 7:27pm

Klaus Zeuge

The performance issues are being treated as Somebody Else’s ProblemPretty nice summary of the philosophical battle between slow ad fueled web sites versus the fast ones. https://adactio.com/journal/9312There are of course some remedies - like using performance budgets and making an informed choise each time a feature, an adtracker, an ad is added. Will the added popularity and revenue be larger than the added slowness which drives away users?The whole debate might of course soon be moot: http://www.zeldman.com/2015/09/18/ad-blocking-and-the-future-of-the-web/?immmid=0d9207&cmp=em-web-na-na-newsltr20150923 Because of Apple

# Posted by Klaus Zeuge on Thursday, August 10th, 2017 at 9:13pm

zeldmanproduction.wpcomstaging.com

MY SOUL is in twain. Two principles on which clued-in web folk heartily agree are coming more and more often into conflict—a conflict most recently thrust into relief by discussions around the brilliant Vox Media team, publishers of The Verge.

The two principles are:

  1. Building performant websites is not only a key differentiator that separates successful sites from those which don’t get read; it’s also an ethical obligation, whose fulfillment falls mainly on developers, but can only happen with the buy-in of the whole team, from marketing to editorial, from advertising to design.
  2. Publishing and journalism are pillars of civilized society, and the opportunity to distribute news and information via the internet (and to let anyone who is willing to do the work become a publisher) has long been a foundational benefit of the web. As the sad, painful, slow-motion decline of traditional publishing and journalism is being offset by the rise of new, primarily web-based publications and news organizations, the need to sustain these new publications and organizations—to “pay for the content,” in popular parlance—is chiefly being borne by advertising…which, however, pays less and less and demands more and more as customers increasingly find ways to route around it.

The conflict between these two principles is best summarized, as is often the case, by the wonderfully succinct Jeremy Keith (author, HTML5 For Web Designers). In his 27 July post, “On The Verge,” Jeremy takes us through prior articles beginning with Nilay Patel’s Verge piece, “The Mobile Web Sucks,” in which Nilay blames browsers and a nonexistent realm he calls “the mobile web” for the slow performance of websites built with bloated frameworks and laden with fat, invasive ad platforms—like The Verge itself.

The Verge’s Web Sucks,” by Les Orchard, quickly countered Nilay’s piece, as Jeremy chronicles (“Les Orchard says what we’re all thinking”). Jeremy then points to a half-humorous letter of surrender posted by Vox Media’s developers, who announce their new Vox Media Performance Team in a piece facetiously declaring performance bankruptcy.

A survey of follow-up barbs and exchanges on Twitter concludes Jeremy’s piece (which you must read; do not settle for this sloppy summary). After describing everything that has so far been said, Mr Keith weighs in with his own opinion, and it’s what you might expect from a highly thoughtful, open-source-contributing, standards-flag-flying, creative developer:

I’m hearing an awful lot of false dichotomies here: either you can have a performant website or you have a business model based on advertising. …

Tracking and advertising scripts are today’s equivalent of pop-up windows. …

For such a young, supposedly-innovative industry, I’m often amazed at what people choose to treat as immovable, unchangeable, carved-in-stone issues. Bloated, invasive ad tracking isn’t a law of nature. It’s a choice. We can choose to change.

Me, I’m torn. As a 20-year-exponent of lean web development (yes, I know how pretentious that sounds), I absolutely believe that the web is for everybody, regardless of ability or device. The web’s strength lies precisely in its unique position as the world’s first universal platform. Tim Berners-Lee didn’t invent hypertext, and his (and his creation’s) genius doesn’t lie in the deployment of tags; it subsists in the principle that, developed rightly, content on the web is as accessible to the Nigerian farmer with a feature phone as it is to a wealthy American sporting this year’s device. I absolutely believe this. I’ve fought for it for too many years, alongside too many of you, to think otherwise.

And yet, as a 20-year publisher of independent content (and an advertising professional before that), I am equally certain that content requires funding as much as it demands research, motivation, talent, and nurturing. Somebody has to pay our editors, writers, journalists, designers, developers, and all the other specialtists whose passion and tears go into every chunk of worthwhile web content. Many of you reading this will feel I’m copping out here, so let me explain:

It may indeed be a false dichotomy that “either you can have a performant website or you have a business model based on advertising” but it is also a truth that advertisers demand more and more for their dollar. They want to know what page you read, how long you looked at it, where on the web you went next, and a thousand other invasive things that make thoughtful people everywhere uncomfortable—but are the price we currently pay to access the earth’s largest library.

I don’t like this, and I don’t do it in the magazine I publish, but A List Apart, as a direct consequence, will always lack certain resources to expand its offerings as quickly and richly as we’d like, or to pay staff and contributors at anything approaching the level that Vox Media, by accepting a different tradeoff, has achieved. (Let me also acknowledge ALA’s wonderful sponsors and our longtime partnership with The Deck ad network, lest I seem to speak from an ivory tower. Folks who’ve never had to pay for content cannot lay claim to moral authority on this issue; untested virtue is not, and so on.)

To be clear, Vox Media could not exist if its owners had made the decisions A List Apart made in terms of advertising—and Vox Media’s decisions about advertising are far better, in terms of consumer advocacy and privacy, than those made by most web publishing groups. Also to be clear, I don’t regret A List Apart’s decisions about advertising—they are right for us and our community.

I know and have worked alongside some of the designers, developers, and editors at Vox Media; you’d be proud to work with any of them. I know they are painfully aware of the toll advertising takes on their site’s performance; I know they are also doing some of the best editorial and publishing work currently being performed on the web—which is what happens when great teams from different disciplines get together to push boundaries and create something of value. This super team couldn’t do their super work without salaries, desks, and computers; acquiring those things meant coming to some compromise with the state of web advertising today. (And of course it was the owners, and not the employees, who made the precise compromise to which Vox Media currently adheres.)

Put a gun to my head, and I will take the same position as Jeremy Keith. I’ll even do it without a gun to my head, as my decisions as a publisher probably already make clear. And yet, two equally compelling urgencies in my core being—love of web content, and love of the web’s potential—make me hope that web and editorial teams can work with advertisers going forward, so that one day soon we can have amazing content, brilliantly presented, without the invasive bloat. In the words of another great web developer I know, “Hope is a dangerous currency—but it’s all I’ve got.”

Also published in Medium.

Like Loading…

# Monday, February 12th, 2024 at 9:54pm

13 Likes

# Liked by Beyoncé Owles on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:25pm

# Liked by Charles Stanhope on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:26pm

# Liked by Alex Carpenter on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:33pm

# Liked by Ruud Steltenpool on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:34pm

# Liked by Baldur Bjarnason on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:45pm

# Liked by Shannon Young ™ on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 2:46pm

# Liked by Joe Darnell on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 3:14pm

# Liked by Elisabeth Irgens on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 3:17pm

# Liked by blinch on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 3:38pm

# Liked by Bram de Haan on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 6:30pm

# Liked by Sven Albrecht on Monday, July 27th, 2015 at 7:41pm

# Liked by bfulgham on Tuesday, July 28th, 2015 at 7:08am

# Liked by Jeff Pease on Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 at 7:29pm

Related posts

Speculation rules and fears

Browser are user agents, not developer agents.

Fidinpamp

A small-scale conspiracy theory from the innards of Google.

PageSpeed Insights bookmarklet

With this bookmarklet you’re only ever one click away from the Lighthouse results for a page.

Speedier tunes

Improving performance with containment.

JavaScript

Inside me there are two wolves. They’re both JavaScript.

Related links

Refreshing The Verge: Facebook video, Google AMP, and the (non)future of the web - The Verge

AMP loads super, super quickly and is simply a better experience right now. So can we add enough design to make an AMP page feel like The Verge?

What a depressing conclusion! But I guess it’s easier than, y’know, actually fixing the bloated Verge website, packed with megabytes and megabytes of invasive trackers. It’s no wonder people prefer the AMP experience. Yet the idea of improving the website isn’t even raised in this whole article.

Then again, this is the same guy who tried to lay the blame for The Verge’s abysmal performance at the feet of web browsers.

Tagged with

Publishing Versus Performance: Our Struggle for the Soul of the Web by Jeffrey Zeldman

Jeffrey weighs on the post I wrote about The Verge. I still feel like there’s a false dichotomy being presented here though: either performance or advertising. But advertising can be performant too. There’s a competitive advantage to be had there.

Tagged with

How Microsoft Edge Is Replacing React With Web Components - The New Stack

“And so what we did is we started looking at, internally, all of the places where we’re using web technology — so all of our internal web UIs — and realized that they were just really unacceptably slow.”

Why were they slow? The answer: React.

“We realized that our performance, especially on low-end machines, was really terrible — and that was because we had adopted this React framework, and we had used React in probably one of the worst ways possible.”

Tagged with

Reckoning: Part 1 — The Landscape - Infrequently Noted

I want to be a part of a frontend culture that accepts and promotes our responsibilities to others, rather than wallowing in self-centred “DX” puffery. In the hierarchy of priorities, users must come first.

Alex doesn’t pull his punches in this four-part truth-telling:

  1. The Landscape
  2. Object Lesson
  3. Caprock
  4. The Way Out

The React anti-pattern of hugely bloated single-page apps has to stop. And we can stop it.

Success or failure is in your hands, literally. Others in the equation may have authority, but you have power.

Begin to use that power to make noise. Refuse to go along with plans to build YAJSD (Yet Another JavaScript Disaster). Engineering leaders look to their senior engineers for trusted guidance about what technologies to adopt. When someone inevitably proposes the React rewrite, do not be silent. Do not let the bullshit arguments and nonsense justifications pass unchallenged. Make it clear to engineering leadership that this stuff is expensive and is absolutely not “standard”.

Tagged with

Faster Connectivity !== Faster Websites - Jim Nielsen’s Blog

The bar to overriding browser defaults should be way higher than it is.

Amen!

Tagged with

Previously on this day

19 years ago I wrote Battle of the maps

Microsoft have launched Virtual Earth, their new web-based, Ajax-fuelled mapping application.

21 years ago I wrote Canterbury

I’m in the lovely town… sorry; city of Canterbury.

22 years ago I wrote Warchalking TV

I missed seeing this on the telly but the BBC ran a feature on the warchalkers.

22 years ago I wrote More geeky fun with RSS

I’ve been like a kid with a new toy ever since I downloaded NetNewsWire Lite.