4 ms·

SPAs don't need to have horrendous UX?

fweespeech 11y ago
SPAs for situations where they are not needed are horrendous UX in and of themselves due to the usability issues for power users that manage JS execution via browser plugins. [e.g. uBlock]
- samizdatum 11y ago
  Saying an application has a "horrendous UX" because you refuse to run its code seems strange to me. You could disable CSS and images and call the result ugly, but I don't think that entitles you to call the website ugly?
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > Saying an application has a "horrendous UX" because you refuse to run its code seems strange to me. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi... If you want to ignore 1% of the internet, you go right ahead.
    - samizdatum 11y ago
      Fair enough, but I think that's a separate issue. If we go down this path, we'd be diluting the term "UX" to homeopathic levels. I wouldn't criticize an iOS-only app for bad UX because it ignores half the market.
blhack 11y ago
Sure they don't, but saying that you are going to force logically separate pages onto a single page is starting from a point of bad UX and trying to dig yourself out of it.
- samizdatum 11y ago
  In theory, the only irreducible UX distinction surrounding logically separate pages in a traditional website vs a SPA is that the SPA doesn't do the full postback, which is arguably a better UX. Sure, in practice many SPAs might be subpar, but then the debate shifts to "are SPAs are difficult to implement correctly," rather than "SPAs for blogging engines (necessarily) creates horrendous UX". There are existence proofs of well-designed SPAs with logically separate pages and excellent UX. As an aside, someone who pattern matches on "SPA = horrendous UX" might not even notice a well-designed SPA, further entrenching their belief that SPAs are a Bad Idea from a UX perspective!

SPAs for situations where they are not needed are horrendous UX in and of themselves due to the usability issues for power users that manage JS execution via browser plugins. [e.g. uBlock]

samizdatum 11y ago
Saying an application has a "horrendous UX" because you refuse to run its code seems strange to me. You could disable CSS and images and call the result ugly, but I don't think that entitles you to call the website ugly?
- fweespeech 11y ago
  > Saying an application has a "horrendous UX" because you refuse to run its code seems strange to me. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi... If you want to ignore 1% of the internet, you go right ahead.
  - samizdatum 11y ago
    Fair enough, but I think that's a separate issue. If we go down this path, we'd be diluting the term "UX" to homeopathic levels. I wouldn't criticize an iOS-only app for bad UX because it ignores half the market.

blhack 11y ago

Sure they don't, but saying that you are going to force logically separate pages onto a single page is starting from a point of bad UX and trying to dig yourself out of it.

samizdatum 11y ago
In theory, the only irreducible UX distinction surrounding logically separate pages in a traditional website vs a SPA is that the SPA doesn't do the full postback, which is arguably a better UX. Sure, in practice many SPAs might be subpar, but then the debate shifts to "are SPAs are difficult to implement correctly," rather than "SPAs for blogging engines (necessarily) creates horrendous UX". There are existence proofs of well-designed SPAs with logically separate pages and excellent UX. As an aside, someone who pattern matches on "SPA = horrendous UX" might not even notice a well-designed SPA, further entrenching their belief that SPAs are a Bad Idea from a UX perspective!