While we might be able to find common ground in the statement that "safe transfer should be the default", we will differ on the definition of "safe".
Unfortunately these discussions often end up in techno-babble. Especially here on HN were we tend to enjoy rather binary viewpoints without too many shades of gray.
Try being your own devils advocate: "What if I have something to hide?".
Then deal with that. Legitimately. Reasonably. Unless you are an anarkist I assume that we can agree that we need authoraties. A legal framework. Policing.
So I 100% support Let's Encrypt and what they have done to destroy the certificate racket. That is a force of good!
But I do not think it was a healthy thing that the browsers (and Google search results) "forced" the world defacto to TLS only.
Why? Look at the list of Trusted Root Certificates in the big OS and browsers. You are telling me only good guys are listed? None here are or can be influenced by state actors?
But that is the good kind of MITM? This then hinges on your definition of "safe transport". Only the anarkist can win against the government. I am not.
It might sound like I am in the "I do not have anything to hide" camp. I am not that naive. But I am firmly in the "I prefer more scrutiny when I have something to hide". Because the measures the authorities needs to employ today are too draconian for my liking.
I preferred the risk of MITM on an ISP level to what the authoraties need to do now to stay in control. We have not eliminated MITM. Just made it harder. And we forgot to discuss legitimate reasons for MITM because "bad".
This is not a "technical" discussion on the fine details of TLS or not. But should be a discussion about the societal changes this causes. We need locks to keep the creeps out but still wants the police to gain access. The current system does not enable that in a healthy way but rather erodes trust.
Us binary people can define clear simple technical solutions. But the rest of the world is quite messy. And us bit twiddlers tend to shy away from that and then ignore the push-back to our actions.
We cannot have a sober conversation unless we depart from the "encrypt everything" is technically good and then that is set in stone. But here we are: Writing off arguments as irrelevant.
You can disagree and think that the OP was letting the definition of "minimalism" and "brutalism" do too much heavy lifting.
But you rather imply that without javascript you cannot create a "winning" website. And ignored that the OP has a real point: Can we call a website minimalist if it requires javascript. It was not excluded that you could embellish (maybe a lot) with javascript. In the same way I would expect javascript to load async.
While I have heard your argument before it implies a really interesting design "smell". On that we might disagree. But it is there nevertheless.
Your curiosity implies that winner takes all. I agree that javascript has won. But I feel you imply that it is then ok for the victor to burn down the village. We forgot what made the web. The foundation is still html and not javascript. What I read as the "javascript attitude" makes is harder to transition away from javascript when that day comes.
Javascript is really great. Warts and all. But the "strong" proponents keeps forgetting the beauty in separation of concerns. On this point we can then have an honest disagreement.
I hope I do not come off too harsh. I genuinely wanted to address your curiosity.
I think the OPs pov is quite clear. So with your reaction I suspect we also disagree on JS0 and JSugar. That is again some bad voodoo on how to seperate concerns from people who looks at who is winning now and missing the bigger picture.
Much like art (and everything, especially in things that line up with pedantry) every person is going to have their own opinion on what exactly minimal is, what exactly brutalist is, etc.
I don't take anyone's comments that this isn't their brutalism / minimalism to heart and any place I can use the feedback I will.
Some pages are loaded in under 1KB so for my definition I don't know how much more minimal I can practically be. Also I'm going to use spam fighting tech because this is a great tool for spammers. If I have to trade not having Richard Stallman using the site that's just a practical trade I'll have to make.
:) I think you have a really reasonable take here, thanks for spending the time to reply.
That is HN itself! Have a look at the source. How little Javascript it actually needs and see how well it can work without. I even like the idea behind the sparse styling and layout it use but I still think the looks could be much improved.
It is not for all as some sites are too much on the app heavy spectrum. But the current mindset among developers makes this leak everywhere. So many sites are really poorly designed. That is interesting in the context of debating minimalism and how broadly that can be defined in context of Javascript requirements.
Too few does what Travis did and try to do something minimalist. And the web suffers for it. Agree or not with his design decisions but his sentiment is laudable.
You only have a hard time to find sites which does not work without javascript because that is the lazy easy way. Good design and engineering is ignored as it is easy to quickly mock up a react site. Accessability then comes as an afterthought. And no-one cares about long term maintenance.
So sure; good luck finding a site which works well without Javascript. But that is my point: It might be the reality but should not be what we strive for. Some prefer the status quo while others prefer the fight. It might be against the windmills but nevertheless the point stands.
Truly minimalist: Accept the defaults. Whatever they are. Count your bytes.
Aesthetic minimalism: A non-serif font. We may have strong opinions here on which. I shall name none to avoid firey flames ;-)
By pointing out Times New Roman by name you do not imply minimalism. Rather a passive aggressive swipe at good old Times New Roman which I find too practical and beautiful to be lumped into nu-brutalism nor aesthetical minimalism. To show good faith I will let the missing "New" slide. Gentlemen shall be given room to misspeak. Happens to the best of us.
Good idea. I get it. But I do not find it "clean" as Travis states.
Have a quick turn around time on the form. Let it be a server problem. Have a hidden field on the form set to "nojs". Let javascript set this to "js".
The server can then decide if this is a bulk edit or not. It can then decide it will batch approvals into one mail or wait a little longer.
Then you can optimize on what you find most clean and/or works best.
Have one form field for easy entry and turn around.
Ten as you suggest? But what is the optimum number? 3? 20? And is it "clean" to have 20 form fields which the javascript version then will roll back into one.
So the non-javascript version will never be better. Somethings gotta give. But submitting a form can be superfast. And the page refresh will be super fast. Such is life without javascript.
And now I realize that I made an implied server optimization: Mail approval should in my mind be batched and dampened. 10 seconds might be enough.As long as new inpit is coming we can postpone approval anyway as the user is busy. Findong the correct number is the magic trick. Not too fast. Not too slow.
Maybe if you're not going to use js then a text area that needs each entry to be a newline link,text. If the form submitted has text there it will process it. You don't get validation but that's part of what you give up not using js.
What's the point of delayed email sending? (Lol tried to find a way to ask that which sounds genuine, but they all read as annoyed me)
Oh I see what you're saying but in what circumstance will a user have more than one email. You only get emailed when you make an update and you can't see the updates until you click the approval link... so I don't think that will be overly helpful.
That said, I could probably have a session or something so that if you approve an email then I'll let you make additional changes within that session without additional approval emails. You're "authenticated" as it is.
Doing session management is orthogonal to this. Still a fun idea, though. Even better, actually. But it introduces a new security concern. How quickly should the session time-out (or not?). But it will be good for UX.
But to explain the original idea:
Users can work in what sometimes might seem strange ways: A user can do multiple edits and choose to be perfectly fine not seeing the updates. The flow state is then simply doing the updates - then go to mail and do the approvals. In that flow it would be nice to only approve one mail which then covers all updates.
00:00 Edit A - Timer start
00:09 Edit B - Timer reset
00:18 Edit C - Timer reset
00:28 Timeout - send one mail for approval of A,B,C
The bulk update mail will then need a top link to simply approve all. And individual links below for each edit as mistakes might have been made during edits (if userfriendly :-)). A lot of work to to save a couple of mails - I know! But the things we choose to obsess over :-) It just might fit your definitio of minimalism.
People who want a fast turnaround of approvals one by one will be annoyed by this. But mail is "slow" and can be delayed anyway. People who want fewer clicks and mails will love it. Good design is then finding the optimum or choose who to champion.
Sub-optimisation. For sure!
So not important at all. And a very limited use-case. I just ran with the idea. As you succintly said elsewhere: This is like art. I will second that with a quote from The Dude: "That's just like, your opinion, man". Very true - and you should do you! I just hope I made clear what my impulsive idea was.
A little bit akin to how TN3270 works. Powerusers did crazy things working blindly ahead while awaiting the response from the mainframe.
if the user changes something, hits submit, thinks about what they did, hits back, changes something else, there should be both changes.
you could expire the form to prevent this, or some other thing to prevent it so you're right that it's not a problem that will get hit as implemented but just something to keep in mind if things change.
Interesting, really! Yes. And I should not step into a bar fight! ;-)
You are both right!
I love that you posted the link. You made it easy for me to get the point of the site as I did not want to use my mail. You effectively lowered my barrier of entry and I thank you for that.
Buuut. You did do the equivalent of just hitting "asdf" on the keyboard. I just put in "my own site". That was not clear to me up front either. I "felt" it "spammy" as well.
While disclaimers are often overused this would however had been nice. "Here you go (just dumb links to my own site)". That would actually have encouraged me even more to visit you.
Someone on the Internet was wrong. Please, no knives :-D
I haven't wanted to wade into this because I want people to use and experience the site in the way they want but also I am kinda interested in the discussion about what kind of "rules" should exist.
Honestly, I appreciate @Cabinguy for taking the initative to show people how it works and if the price of admission is some links to his stuff all the better. Furthermore, this is exactly what it is for. I guess in some ways it IS spammy but that's sort of the point is the market your own links. Generally this url then gets put in your instagram / tiktok / whatever bio that only allows one link.
I like that @WizzWizz4 (the greatest of the WizzWizzes in my opinion) was defending the "sanctity" of my site but also probably more importantly to them this site. However, I just don't think it is needed here. As the website was used as exactly it was intended.
Your heart is the right place but your logic is upside down! :-)
The easy way to make it simple is do it as a form and then embellish it with javascript. Maybe counter intuitive but still. Let the javascript mangle the form so it does not look like a form and Bob is your uncle. By always using that pattern you easily end up with good usability and accessibility.
The same as with CSS. Make good content with nice semantic HTML. Then go crazy with super cool CSS.
But I am an old fart who hates Tailwind with a vengance. But I do acknowledge it get work done and many think it is great. So I will sulk in the corner and say that they are doing it wrong. Old man yelling at clouds.
Next: REST is great but misunderstood. I do not miss SOAP.
But know this: I love your sentiment and attitude. Nice job! Grumble ;-)
Many (most?) current TVs has either a game or PC mode which can be set on your HDMI to disable these "improvements".
I think this is primarily driven by console gamers to the benefits of PC users. Our needs align here.
If you check rtings.com they usually evaluate how good the TVs are as a monitor.
You might still have issues with local dimming etc. But that is the price of cheap. Better models works really good today.
I am using a really cheapo LG 43" 4K as a monitor. Properly adjusted it is usable. Would I like better? Yes. But it is worth the trade off. And there are only a few options for a "proper" 4K monitor at 43". I find that a little strange as it hits the sweet spot around 110ppi. I used to used dual monitors but I much prefer a (I know: comically) large screen.
Only real annoyance I have is that it does not turn off automatically like a real monitor using DPMS. This means that I have to turn it on using a button. It will turn off after 15 min if there is no signal. Like in the olden days.
Not quite correct. Their dedicated servers base configuration have 1gig. But when ordering you can add 10gig as an easy option (or add later).
The 1 gig is too cheap to meter with free traffic. If you choose 10gig you pay for the traffic. Those who need it might use it :-)
Around the Windows XP / 7 timeframe I used Blackbox for Windows (bb4win)[1] and was very happy with it. I used it for I think 2 or 3 years. I cannot remember if it was with Windows 7 or 10 I stopped (I skipped 8). It was painfree and nice. Now I use Windows so rarely I do not spend any time making it behave nicely.
I have not used it recently and it seems to have morphed into xoblite[2]
While we might be able to find common ground in the statement that "safe transfer should be the default", we will differ on the definition of "safe".
Unfortunately these discussions often end up in techno-babble. Especially here on HN were we tend to enjoy rather binary viewpoints without too many shades of gray.
Try being your own devils advocate: "What if I have something to hide?".
Then deal with that. Legitimately. Reasonably. Unless you are an anarkist I assume that we can agree that we need authoraties. A legal framework. Policing.
So I 100% support Let's Encrypt and what they have done to destroy the certificate racket. That is a force of good!
But I do not think it was a healthy thing that the browsers (and Google search results) "forced" the world defacto to TLS only.
Why? Look at the list of Trusted Root Certificates in the big OS and browsers. You are telling me only good guys are listed? None here are or can be influenced by state actors?
But that is the good kind of MITM? This then hinges on your definition of "safe transport". Only the anarkist can win against the government. I am not.
It might sound like I am in the "I do not have anything to hide" camp. I am not that naive. But I am firmly in the "I prefer more scrutiny when I have something to hide". Because the measures the authorities needs to employ today are too draconian for my liking.
I preferred the risk of MITM on an ISP level to what the authoraties need to do now to stay in control. We have not eliminated MITM. Just made it harder. And we forgot to discuss legitimate reasons for MITM because "bad".
This is not a "technical" discussion on the fine details of TLS or not. But should be a discussion about the societal changes this causes. We need locks to keep the creeps out but still wants the police to gain access. The current system does not enable that in a healthy way but rather erodes trust.
Us binary people can define clear simple technical solutions. But the rest of the world is quite messy. And us bit twiddlers tend to shy away from that and then ignore the push-back to our actions.
We cannot have a sober conversation unless we depart from the "encrypt everything" is technically good and then that is set in stone. But here we are: Writing off arguments as irrelevant.
reply