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.
Skill issue - on the devs side.
A lot of pages even fail if you only disable 3rd-party scripts (my default setting on mobile).
I consider them broken, since the platform is to render a Document Object Model; scripting is secondary functionality and having no fallbacks is bad practice.
Imagine if that were a pdf/epub.
wild thing is that with modern css and local fonts (nerdfonts, etc), you can make a simple page with a modern grid and nested css without requiring a single third party library or js.
devs are just lazy.
Devs are lazy but also product people and design request stuff that even modern CSS cannot do
devs are just lazy.
*cost-efficient. At this point it's a race to the bottom.
and its not even the devs. its the higher ups forcing them to do shit that won't work.
no fallbacks is bad practice.
This is how you know they're extra lazy -- no "please enable javascript because we suck and have no noscript version".
It reminds me of flash when it first gained popularity.
“Please enable flash so you can see our unnecessary intro animation and flash-based interface” at, like, half of local restaurant websites
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. 😆 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
That site is literally just static content. Yes JS is needed for interactivity, but there's none here
Ehhhhh it kinda' depends. Most things that are merely changing how something already present on the page is displayed? Probably don't need JS. Doing something cool based on the submit or response of a form? Probably don't need JS. Changing something dynamically based off of what the user is doing? Might not need JS!
Need to do some computation off of the response of said form and change a bunch of the page? You probably need JS. Need to support older browsers simply doing all of the previously described things? Probably need JS.
It really, really depends on what needs to happen and why. Most websites are still in the legacy support realm, at least conceptually, so JS sadly is required for many, many websites. Not that they use it in the most ideal way, but few situations are ideal in the first place.
A lot of this is just non-tech savvy people failing to understand the limitations and history of the internet.
(this isn't to defend the BS modern corporations pull, but just to explain the "how" of the often times shitty requirements the web devs are dealing with)
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
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
I can do it but it’s hard convincing clients to double their budget for customers with accessible needs they’re not equipped to support in other channels.
That being said, my personal sites and projects all do it. And I’m thankful for accessible website laws where I’m from that make it mandatory for companies over a certain size to include accessible supports that need to work when JS is disabled.
because modern webdevs cant do anything without react
It's like JavaScript is used way over its reasonable use cases and you need a thick layer of framework indirection to be able to do anything, and yet still sucks.
I'm a webdev. I agree. I like react.
I disagree,I did fullstack for years without react, I used the much superior Vue.js
because ~~modern~~ young/unskilled webdevs cant do anything without react
I have 13 sites whitelisted to allow JS. The internet is fairly usable for me without JS.
Same. This is the way.
Yes.
Many people won't even know what we're talking about; to them it's like saying "the sheer amount of websites that are unusable without HTML". But I use uBlock Origin in expert mode and block js by default; this allows me to click on slightly* fishy links without endangering my setup or immediately handing my data over to some 3rd party.
So I'm happy to see news websites that do not require js at all for a legible experience, and enraged that others even hide the fucking plain text of the article behind a script. Even looking at the source code does not reveal it. And I'm not talking about paywalls.
* real fishy links go into the Tor browser, if I really want to see what's behind them.
Said it on a top-level comment as well, but I use "medium mode" on uBlock (weirdly not advertised, but easy enough to enable: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium-mode). I've found it to be a good middle ground between expert mode which is basically noscript, and rawdogging it.
If I encounter a site that I can't visit unless I enable JS, then I leave.
If I'd want to write a site with js-equivalent functionality and ux without using js, what would my options be?
WASM and cry because you can't directly modify the DOM without JS.
You can't modify the DOM.
But ~~some~~ most dynamicity can stay - sites can be built freely server-side, and even some "dynamic" functionality like menus can be made using css pseudoclasses.
Sure, you won't have a Google Docs or Gmail webapp, but 90% of stuff doesn't actually need one.
A basic website doesn't require js.
A webshop, for example, does for the part around adding to cart and checkout - but it doesn't for merely browsing.
HTML and CSS can do quite a lot, and you can use PHP or cgi-bin for some scripting.
Of course, it's not a perfect alternative. JavaScript is sometimes the only option; but a website like the one I was trying to use could easily have just been a static site.
I use uBlock medium mode, and if I can't get a website to work without having to enable JavaScript, then I just leave the website.
I generally do the same. In fact, on desktop, uBO is set to hard mode. Unfortunately, I do need to access these sites from time to time.
I just use NOSCRIPT to do this and its annoying to visit websites that need Javascript, but its handy with noscript cause I just turn on the Javascript the website needs for functionality (this should also speed up load times)
Sometimes if am using a browser without extension support (like Gnome WEB) I just disable Javascript on Websites or frontends that dont need it like Invidious (if am facing issues)
