48
I think the internet is broken, and it's broken at it's core (jeferson.me)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think AI won't save us here, our base is broken. The internet is kind of shattered, most of the pages on the wild have broken and even wrong links. Divs doings the work of buttons, the semantics are totally lost. This, at least for me, feels like a good view point on what we can fix first, and with luck have a better internet.

All feedback is welcome.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 3 months ago* (7 children)

Japanese websites are really crap. Websites without a modern UI framework are pretty miserable. I hate phone numbers that try open an app I almost never want to click and see a phone call pop up.

What people who yearn for a better web always seem to miss is a vision for the future. So often its going back to the past with simple sites, no JavaScript, HTML+CSS, websites that do one thing, full privacy at the cost of terrible UX. Fuck that use modern tech build websites that allow you to do things real time. Dont just leave a phone number, give me a way to easily submit a booking. Use recommendation engines to serve interesting content. Connect users across protocols. Use the GPU. The possibilities for websites these days is crazy but few really go for it. Only do massive tech companies try and go above a traditional we site but they do it with the intention to create walled gardens instead of build out a web garden.

Despite my complaints I mostly use the sites I complain about. But its why I like the fediverse so much. It breaks the trend of going back to irc and text sites and has a modern web vision.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    The thing is, a lot of websites don't need to be interactive, or only need to present interactivity to a minority of visitors. Consider Wikipedia, for example. Only a small percentage of people visiting the site are interested in editing anything. The rest shouldn't be burdened with massive quantities of extra downloads for a feature they don't need, want, or use.

    Furthermore, you don't need a "modern web framework" to have an interactive site, and most of them seem to be pretty bloated.

    The level of technology a site displays should be appropriate to what the site is trying to do. If your site is about services that you need an appointment for, then yes, there should be a booking setup on the site. If you're running a store, you should have a shopping cart. Add as much of an interactive layer as is necessary to do these things, and do them well, but no more than that.

    Most of us just want pages to render quickly, stop tracking us unnecessarily, and stop choking our connections and stealing our electricity for stuff that isn't useful to us (or to anyone except depraved corporations).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Most of the interesting parts of the web are not static and you do need some scripting language to have an interactive site. Most users are on complex web apps its why people open their browsers everyday. The internet should be more than a wiki and blogs it needs complex applications and any future web proposal should be leveraging what we can do to solve problems we face not saying "just make simpler things like wiki and blogs". Bloat is a non issue, people naturally optimize their websites to provide a good experience. Even the heaviest fattest frameworks still load nearly instantly. Bring in 50 ad providers and it still loads in a second.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago

    Not sure if I can agree with that.

    I would say that most of the internet is static by definition, even my blog is a static page with some CDN to make it faster. Most of the news pages are static, most of blogs should be static, most of the e-commerce should be static (the product page is static, not the purchase itself),

    You may live in a place where internet is fast, but the majority of the world still breaths in 3G, with unstable connections and a miserable experience, so a 10mb page (I'm looking to you stupid Discord), could be a 1mb page, if wasn't the bloat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'll heavily disagree with you.

    All the modern web, using the modern frameworks, for the modern browser, that requires modern hardware, for a modern person... I hove you got the gist just by this phrase.

    We can use less and still be usefull. Most of the web is static. The bakery don't need to render a unique page for you just because you are from the same country. The same way that the news feed don't need to regenerate the page every request, it can keep the old news there, until a new post arives, so clean the cache and hit a new one.

    Notice that I'm not talking about pages like a mail application, figma or discord. I'm talking about the majority of the web, most are static, won't need this.

    Maybe would be a cool thing for ya to look on the small web moviment, it's a pretty interesting idea, and can show that static pages can be cool, even knowing that they aren't the "common place".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I seen the small web movement. Those sites are not good. Not only is there nothing to do except read posts but functionally they are bad UX to navigate.

    Most of the static sites dont even need to be websites. The baker does not need a website. Good website or bad website makes little to no difference. Its fine if they want to have a single static page with some info and a contact email im not saying they need anything good. But if every site was like that the internet would be worse than it is today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 3 months ago

    You are so wrong in this assumption. You barely touched the tip of the iceberg behind the small web movement.

    Most of the static sites dont even need to be websites.

    Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have a page? That my blog isn't important enough to exist?

    The baker does not need a website.

    What is the baker want's to have a footprint online, maybe adding his working schedule? Maybe adding some historical information about the bakery? Or even information for requesting a special bakery? Isn't this important?

    Good website or bad website makes little to no difference. Its fine if they want to have a single static page with some info and a contact email im not saying they need anything good. But if every site was like that the internet would be worse than it is today.

    Not sure if I follow this, but prefer the things stays the way they are. With pages using 10mb of frameworks without any need, with pages that loads a "loader" to load the page? Because this is the reason why the internet is ugly and broken.

    If this is the case, I not only disagree with you, but I think you should experience the web, look for local pages and see how good or bad they can be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent