this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023

224 points (93.8% liked)

Web Development

3453 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the web development community! This is a place to post, discuss, get help about, etc. anything related to web development

What is web development?

Web development is the process of creating websites or web applications

Rules/Guidelines

Follow the programming.dev site rules
Keep content related to web development
If what you're posting relates to one of the related communities, crosspost it into there to help them grow
If youre posting an article older than two years put the year it was made in brackets after the title

Related Communities

Wormhole

[email protected]

Some webdev blogs

Not sure what to post in here? Want some web development related things to read?

Heres a couple blogs that have web development related content

https://frontendfoc.us/ - [RSS]
https://wesbos.com/blog
https://davidwalsh.name/ - [RSS]
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/
https://sia.codes/posts/ - [RSS]
https://www.smashingmagazine.com/ - [RSS]
https://www.bennadel.com/ - [RSS]
https://web.dev/ - [RSS]

Credits

Icon base by Delapouite under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

224

The Web Is Fucked (thewebisfucked.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The web is fucked and there’s nothing we can do about it. Kev Quirk looks back fondly at Web 1.0.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The article acknowledges this in the conclusion (emphasis mine):

I’m done. There you have it. That’s my opinion about how ____ed the web is. Look, we will never get the web of old back. Let’s be honest, it wasn’t perfect either. The web of today is more accessible, more dynamic and pretty much a cornerstone of our society.

Accessibility wasn't the main topic discussed in the article. It was mostly pointing out that the current web is too centralised.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Accessibility wasn’t the main topic discussed in the article

That's part of the problem. All these rants about the glory of Web 1.0 are ignoring the fact that Web 1.0 wasn't usable for anybody with accessibility issues and the modern web is better for them. A tiny acknowledgement at the bottom of their rant shows how they value accessibility lower than all of their other concerns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think accessibility is meant in term of disabled people.

I understood it as accessible in terms of technical knowledge. Anyone can whip out their phone and access the internet... or at least use an app which needs internet.

Eternal September is another term for it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Accessibility almost always refers to disabled people, especially in web development. I've never heard anyone in the industry refer to accessibility in any other way, without explicitly making that clear.

If they meant the reading you took from it, that's even worse and my point is even more pertinent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they meant the reading you took from it, that's even worse and my point is even more pertinent.

Why? The internet is a powerful tool and there are plenty of morons using it without knowing anything about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

my original point was that the main idea of the article down plays the accessibility gains of the modern web. Your reading was that the author meant a different definition of accessibility and not A11y, which would mean the author didn't just down play it, they completely ignored it. The author is complaining that the modern web is awful, while ignoring the huge gains for people who need these accessibility features and how awful web 1.0 was for them

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think the author used both meanings at different times.

First time they mention interesting website designs at the cost of accessibility.

But the second time they mean how low the technical barrier is to access the modern (and bland) web and how it tries to caters to lowest common denominator.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The article wasn't really about Web 1.0 as much as it was about the time that Web 1.0 was around. The author could remove "Web 1.0" and replace it with "late 1990s to early 2000s Internet".

That’s part of the problem.

No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn't mean that its position is moot.

Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility? I'd rather we let the author speak their mind, and focus on what they want to say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you asking for every article ever to have a section discussing accessibility?

No. I'm asking that when they complain about how the modern web is "fucked" and web 1.0 was better, they don't try to act like that is an absolute, since that's an opinion that is not widely applicable.

No, thats just the angle that the article wanted to take. Just because it ignores an aspect of something doesn’t mean that its position is moot.

Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

they don’t try to act like that is an absolute

Again, to write an article means to cut out things that don't matter to the core argument. You're asking for the writer to complete a thesis.

Ignoring part of a topic makes your argument weaker.

And again, this is an opinion piece, not a well developed thesis. What you are asking for is both unreasonable and impractical when writing an opinion piece.