Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "NDC Conferences" channel.

Btw, just to confirm, saying something is supported in ALL major browsers, with exceptions, is a total waste. Of time, space, everything. I want my 5 seconds back, dammit!
5
@larryczerwonka5125 huh ? What I said is to physically reload the page. Like visiting another page. It's the most basic thing, it works perfectly on ALL browsers and ALL devices and screens.
3
Yeah, I'm in the same camp. I like (liked?) JS as a language, and realized I don't like any frameworks. Though, to be honest, I haven't used one in years, since I'm a backend dev. jQuery was/is the only well built, well designed piece of JS. And it's what it should be - just a library, not a framework. I'm still baffled that some simple websites go to the hassle of having Angular or Vue or React. If you have A LOT of reactive (is this the word ?) elements, then, maybe. Something like a facebook page, I guess would be quite the work with only jQuery. But maan, there's a lot of websites that are over engineered with these modern JS frameworks.
3
@xcoder1122 The untyped nature is a given that can easily be worked with by manually typing what you need. Classes are not a feature to me, but a regression. Prototypes are superior. Forcing classes into JS is just one of the reasons why I dislike JS frameworks in the first place. And JS direction in general. Something neat, cute, small and powerful that got out of hand by being shoved where it doesn't belong, or transformed (just because it was so powerful that it can!) into something which is just stupid, but, hey, it's almost the same as other languages! And totally something that we didn't actually needed. Really, the things you're mentioning make sense in the backend world where more strictness is required, but JS was not created for backend. So I'm only grading it for browser usage. For backend basically any other popular language is better IMO.
3
You speak as if it's the devs who decide all of these, not the clients themselves. Who always want something they've seen on another website. Developers can certainly be more outspoken about the tradeoffs and/or benefits of simply having less, but they rarely, very rarely control this. In the end it's the one who owns and pays that decides.
3
Because it was a rather badly made example. You only need a <select> for the country prefix, and then the input, with a placeholder (a very-supported HTML input attribute) to show the format. Really easy, actually. And actually very usable without JS, unlike some other form validation hints that still DO need JS.
2
Yeah, that triggered me too. So confidently wrong :))
2
Was this really this year ? I swear I've seen this talk years ago (like when the pandemic started). The examples are mostly the same. And worst of all, it's still "accordians" instead of "accordion" AAAAAAARRRGH my brain melts. Edit: I remember the browser support slides. One of them was wrong. Which it seems has been fixed since. But they still completely lack what they're about. I mean, she is speaking what it's about, but it's really basic accessibility to have it written on the slide too, to have something like "Browser support for :has pseudoselector" as a title above the browser icons. Other than that, I like the examples provided. Of course the idea is to remove or reduce JS where you can, not to fixate on buliding full websites completely void of JS. I mean, that's a thing too, especially for those that are nuts about security + privacy and disable JS by default on the websites they visit.
2
JS is not a horrible language, the frameworks are. Pure JS + jQuery can be very beautiful. And powerful.
2
You can't really show the client a regex pattern, nor can you expect the browser to translate that. It's up to you, the developer, to show that somehow somewhere. Like using the very-supported placeholder attribute that she totally forgot about. To be frank, most examples could've been done better.
2
This can simply be split with a <select> for the country code, in which you can display the flag of the country and the prefix, and then the phone field with the country-less phone number, using the pattern. The idea with a select + input I've seen it already on some websites, though I can't tell which, I don't remember. Edit: oh, sorry, now I see you mentioned having a dropdown at the end :)
1
If the page is very light and the backend is also very fast, simply reloading the page with the changes done can actually be a solution. Not for EVERYTHING, but it can still be a very usable and modern website.
1
@larryczerwonka5125 Oh ok, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Yeah, didn't knew about the "below the fold" term. Technically it can be done with a # in URL to automatically scroll into view. But it can get cumbersome fast, if you have a lot of places to take care of.
1
@larryczerwonka5125 Yeah, I'm kind of the same. I like the language, but I hate the frameworks that spawned out of it. jQuery is so good, powerful and well designed, why can't the rest be the same ? Unobtrusive and an actual library, an actual tool. Oh well.
1
@NathanaCentauri The presentation was good, not excellent. Just the browser support slides alone, that have no mention what they're about is enough to not be able to call this presentaiton "excellent". There were other small issues too. I mean, overall it got the point across, but it can certainly be improved upon. And personally, I think she overly complicated the CSS, when the focus was on different things. That CSS was frankly a bit off-putting. The examples should've been simpler, with more focus on the actual important stuff, like the "has()" selector.
1
@NathanaCentauri Hey, no problem, glad you liked it, anytime I can help, I'll do my best! Regarding how to cook those eggs... just tell your girlfriend to try something different every day, until you can take a different opinion than your own without it appearing to you as offensive. Especially when that opinion has arguments too. And then just iterate on that. Who knows, maybe, some day, you'll even reply with something productive, that actually moves the discussion forward! Cheers!
1
I see this as simply not great examples of what can be done. Like, in multiple occasions, the idea was to show that you can use CSS "has()", but it got filled with lots of grid stuff and other. Which is not mandatory, things can be done differently. It is, I guess, an insight that in some (many?) situations, this can get to gnarly CSS. I would've done these examples by starting with the base html & css already done, and only adding the interactive parts. The toggle and testimonials for example, they could've been done with easier to see/understand HTML and CSS. And actually just focus on the has() and/or checked parts (I think :active could've worked too, if you don't want to use form elements)
1
Of course CSS doesn't do engineering math. That's not the point of this talk. The point is that many clients will ask for some fancy stuff, and the idea is that there's quite many of them that can be done without JS. And knowing when not to use JS is useful, maybe you can have multiple pages or the whole website without JS. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it when it's clearly the way to go.
1
Amen!
1
@christianbarnay2499 Realistically, there's still a lot of sites that need JS. Or to put it the other way, only a small portion of websites can go full JS-less. The vast majority of them, the actual problem at hand, is the websites that can use 20kB of JS instead of 1.4MB of JS. And learning new tricks like the ones presented here can help with that.
1
Because it's DEFINITELY overused, and that's exactly what she said in the presentation.
1
Say whaat ? The ticket to this was $2500 ?
1
Just visit her website that's mentioned at 56:44
1
Yeah, realistically, client side you have only form hints, so the user does not forget or is pushed into providing the correct format(s). Validations is only the one done server-side. But, everybody still calls it form validation for the client-side too. It's not Amy's fault that much here, if basically everybody is wrong here. Hopefully, as an industry, we'll evolve past that sooner rather than later.
1
@tuxlector Fair enough. I do agree that the talk... well, I got the point, but it could've been done better. The examples especially, way too much outside-of-scope CSS. And, yeah, a lot of minor mistakes or inconsistencies or things left out.
1
Yeah, that confused the heck out of me too.
1