I think the point of the article (and I agree to that) is that “modern” websites (i.e. use heavy javascript frameworks) are having real issues that websites being built without loads of client-side javascript do not have. I guess some websites built in 2005 are performing better and are more accessible than websites being built today.
I’d have to agree. Old websites, while dated, are readable and in some cases more easily navigated. Some of the new trends (like scrolling but not going anywhere but stuff happens) is a neat trick, but entirely not conducive to information exchange. It’s just dick wagging, and now that everyone has it it’s not even that anymore.
Because everyone got a website by 2005, they still work, so why would I pay good money to replace something that works??
I think the point of the article (and I agree to that) is that “modern” websites (i.e. use heavy javascript frameworks) are having real issues that websites being built without loads of client-side javascript do not have. I guess some websites built in 2005 are performing better and are more accessible than websites being built today.
May I sooth you with a motherfucking website
Already know that one, probably my favourite website on the world wide web ;-)
I’d have to agree. Old websites, while dated, are readable and in some cases more easily navigated. Some of the new trends (like scrolling but not going anywhere but stuff happens) is a neat trick, but entirely not conducive to information exchange. It’s just dick wagging, and now that everyone has it it’s not even that anymore.