Things you hate that are on every single fucking website for absolutely no reason whatsoever

things you hate that are on every single fucking website for absolutely no reason whatsoever

Other urls found in this thread:

alistapart.com/article/improvingprint
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

is this even valid css

please register :^)

javascript

it's in the @media print section of every single shiteating framework that everyone fucking uses. it's what happens when some flagrantly homosexual web designer publishes an article on his blog that says "oh look at what this neat trick can do, isn't it so useful?" and then it is put everywhere even though it defeats its own purpose and is a big part of why nearly every fucking website is an eyesore when you print it out.

this site uses cookies xD okay?

that shit's actually mandated by EU law. You'll see it in Burgerland too if you use an EU VPN.

I just filter the things out with uBlock's element picker, block third-party cookies, and run a cookie-deleting addon that wipes first-party cookies as soon as the tab is closed.

javascript in and of itself is not as cancerous as jquery/angular/etc.

No, it is JS. Because whether you use a meme framework or not, you're buying into the central problem: the idea that websites should run active content instead of just displaying static text and images. Active content is the problem, and it happens to be written in Javascript, but it'd be just as shitty if it were written in Python, Lua, or what have you.

Javascript you hate for many reasons. Many good reasons.

I can think of many things I hate about web designs that I hate for very GOOD reasons. And also ones I hate for bad or middling reasons. difficult to think of ones I hate for no reason.

What is that supposed to achieve?

There are plenty of ways to do both at the same time to satisfy people like you, or people who like to print things, or people who use lynx. I agree that static content should be the first priority, but browsers are now VMs and there are good ways to use that. Websites should be functional and useful both with and without active content. Most modern websites are utter shit with JS and barely usable without.

What issue do you have with "active" content in websites

...

>browsers are now VMs and there are good ways to use that
there are many uses for that capability, but most of those uses are bad ones, very few of them are good uses. In practice about 98% of it is either adding pointless animations to the UI or advertising and spyware. We'd have a simpler, more consistent, and faster web if browsers weren't VMs and only displayed static content. To say nothing of security, the vast majority of browser exploits rely on JS.

When you link something it shows the url in parentheses behind it

other people

It puts the href attribute in parentheses after a link when you print it out. the faggot who came up with it thought he was really clever. Now, if you try to print a web page such as a news article or blog post, in addition to the floating header dropping down to the top of every page, covering over text, or the back to top button floating down over every page covering over text, or the icons in the header all expanding to take up an entire page each, you also have to deal with every nav link, every "related/suggested articles" link, every link in the article/post (and nowadays that's at least one each sentence), every image that is a link to itself, etc. all have "(alksjdfaeurfaiufeliufliaulancliancuafelaiulau)" after them and that completely breaks what was left of the layout. It's even better when it overlaps other content instead of pushing it aside.

>vimium
patrician taste user

so make active content better instead of complaining that it shouldn't exist. I don't think web sites should require active content to be fully functional, but it is a major convenience if done with sensible moderation.

I think it makes sense for article bodies where you have links scattered around that don't make sense when printed out. But putting it on every single is goddamn pants on head.

Defeatism. Javascript devs are actually trying to solve this problem and are largely successful and here you are trying to wind us back to the 90s.

if the capability is there at all, it won't be used with "sensible moderation".

You release your opinion is worthless right? I don't mean I disagree with it I just mean it is literally pointless. It's just complaining at this point. Neither developers nor consumers want a static web, that's something you need to come to terms with.

Solving it how? How are JS devs limiting the ability of JS to modify the DOM and UI in general? How are they removing tracking and privacy-invading features, and defeating browser fingerprinting? How are they making life harder for advertising companies?

javascript doesn't kill people, shitty web developers kill people

It really would have been solved just by putting "article a" instead of just "a", but then you'll still get problems. Some guy came up with the idea of using dynamically generated footnotes - alistapart.com/article/improvingprint - but the real solution is just have a "Print" link that opens a page with just the content that prints. Or actually put a little thought into semantic HTML and create actual style definitions for print media instead of just slapping on what everyone else uses. I just hate that it's impossible to print a web page these days.

Click a link to an article
>whoops, you must log in to do that
Log in
>Here's our homepage. Good luck finding that link again

back
back
reload

"I Don't Care About Cookies" add-on for Firefox is a must-have for everyone who lives in EU.

> Web designers working on print styles have ruined print
What a funny world in which we live