

Do we really need HTML? - DanielBMarkham
http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2010/08/do-we-really-ne.php

======
lhorie
I think you're confusing concepts:

>> I'm simply asking if using an entertainment medium to do your job is such a
good idea.

HTML isn't an entertainment medium... you need css, javascript, http, sql,
apache, php, flash, linux, (or equivalent technologies) and a plethora of
other technologies to run this entertainment medium.

Do we need any of them? Technically speaking, no. You could write markup in
lisp, network with ftp and run Solaris on your server. Pragmatically speaking
though, you do need _something_ and the technology stack that we're currently
using isn't exactly going away to make way for a gazillion ad-hoc domain-
specific stacks.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I think you are confusing a tiny little piece of grass with the field that I
am describing. I probably wasn't clear enough.

Instead of listing all the various pieces of technology and how they come
together to make a web page, it might be more interesting to ask whether or
not the average web experience -- browsers, pages, css, servers, databases,
the cloud -- is a good fit for what we use it for.

The point was very clear that I was referring to the common way html is
consumed. Not really interested in all the little pieces, at least not for
this essay.

One of the commenters on my blog said that I obviously didn't know anything
about html, so, for the record, I've written and deployed dozens of web apps.
And I am proficient in CSS and SQL and all of that. Very neat stuff. But not
germane here. I'm not saying change the stack. If anything, the implication is
to vastly simplify the browser.

~~~
lhorie
Yeah, I'm not following your argument. It seems you're saying that since the
"cloud" stack is becoming focused on entertainment consumption, we should use
something more focused for business. Is that what you mean?

Out there in the real world, people use Photoshop to do graphics because the
cloud just doesn't work for them. Microsoft Word and Excel because they can't
afford the risk of leaking documents out. AutoCAD. ProTools. Maia. Powerpoint.
Snagit. Adobe Acrobat. Supermarket cash register software, air traffic control
software, etc etc.

Use the right tool for the job and all that.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
No this really isn't much of an anti-tech rant, although it looks like some
folks mistakenly took it for that.

Trying to shorten it, there is a huge amount of stuff in the world that you
can accomplish with just 3 very simple UI controls. HTML has gone zillions of
miles past that. Distraction can become a productivity issue in itself.
Perhaps there is an opportunity for a vastly more simple technology
interaction experience.

Or -- the iPod did one thing and did it well. That's why it was such a huge
hit. Can you out iPod the iPod? Is there further to go down the simplicity
path and still keep usefulness? I think there is.

~~~
lhorie
I'd say simplifying wouldn't really work in today's world. e.g. enterprise
software development: Things like calendar controls, auto-completing fields
and sortable paginated tables - which are far more complex than what plain
vanilla HTML offers - are client requirements these days.

Sure you can make nice games and distraction sites with the same technology,
but then, that's what monitoring sotfware exists for (and like I mentioned in
the other comment, I don't think technology solutions are particularly good to
deal w/ distractions)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I don't know. Let's try it.

I'll mock up something with the minimal amount of controls that still
accomplishes a useful task, say reading HN, and post it. Shouldn't be too
difficult to do.

~~~
lhorie
I think the HN UI is already simple enough as it is :)

My point is that clients who pay money often want complex UI elements.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have
trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable?

The simplest design is not pencil and paper. It's a neural interface that
presents us with only the important information and allows us to think of the
answer. The computer then executes it. The next simplest would be a question
with a physical button to push for yes/no.

The problem (I think) is that each layer of the OSI stack, each piece of the
O/S, each tool vendor, each website out to make a buck -- they're all
demanding more and more attention to things that are not important, but
distracting. If a neural interface is ever to work, we're going to have to
start setting some standards for what's appropriate stimulus and what isn't.
Hence the discussion on the extremes of design simplicity

~~~
lhorie
>> Do they really? Or do programmers like complex UI elements and then have
trained clients that busier screens are somehow more valuable?

Hmm, have you ever dealt with clients? :)

Jokes aside, it might be a combination of both (on a macro scale anyways).

Re: neural interface - erm, if we're gonna talk about hand-wavy vaporware,
here's mine: singularity.

