Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files

Re:Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files by muglug on Sunday March 08, 2020 @07:09PM (#22521323)

I think an SPA can be much more user-friendly than a traditional series of server-rendered pages.

Email is a great example of this - GMail, at launch, had much better UX than existing server-rendered applications like Hotmail.

You can find bad UX everywhere - in SPAs and server-rendered interfaces alike - but there’s nothing implicit to SPAs that reduces usability.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files by julianlam on Monday March 09, 2020 @12:04AM (#22522911)

I feel like Gmail has lost that edge. Email being a text medium should be fast, but Gmail using up many hundreds of megabytes of RAM and taking many seconds to load really feels like they've lost sight of what reading an email is about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files by wyqydsyq on Monday March 09, 2020 @12:30AM (#22523005)

I too despise the "kitchen sink" approach seen in Gmail's UI where they are trying to cram every unwanted and unnecessary feature into your view and RAM at once.

If you used "Inbox for Gmail" before Google abandoned it and miss the much cleaner and focused UI, this Chrome extension upgrades Gmail to have the same styles:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/simplify-gmail/pbm...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files by boomlinde on Monday March 09, 2020 @03:20AM (#22523566)

Gmail wasn't a single page at launch, so its UX advantage had nothing to do with that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Websites have evolved back to static HTML/CSS/JS files by acephal on Monday March 09, 2020 @04:29PM (#22529407)

Wasn't long-polling the killer feature?

[ Parent | on HN ]