It’s all very admirable, but it also feels a little bit 927.
Thanks to jQuery, you probably don’t need jQuery. Just look at all these methods that started life in jQuery, that are now part of the standardised DOM API:
Rachel uncovers a great phrase for dealing with older browsers:
It isn’t your fault, but it is your problem.
She points to multiple ways of using CSS Grid today while still providing a decent experience for older browsers.
Crucially, there’s one message that hasn’t changed in fifteen years:
Websites do not need to look the same in every browser.
It’s crazy that there are still designers and developers who haven’t internalised this. And before anyone starts claiming that the problem is with the clients and the bosses, Rachel has plenty of advice for talking with them too.
Your job is to learn about new things, and advise your client or your boss in the best way to achieve their business goals through your use of the available technology. You can only do that if you have learned about the new things. You can then advise them which compromises are worth making.
This is an excellent proposal from Emil. If we can apply
display: contents to fieldsets, then we would finally have a way of undoing the byzantine browser styles that have hindered adoption of this element. This proposal also ensures backwards compatibility so there’d be no breakage of older sites:
The legacy appearance of fieldsets probably needs to be preserved for compatibility reasons. But
display: contentsis not supported in any old browsers, and is most likely used on exactly zero sites using the legacy look of fieldsets.
Whaddya say, browser makers?
A website should not fight the browser. Let the browser provide the chrome, and simply provide the content.
This post is about Medium, but I think there’s a lesson here for progressive web apps too. A progressive web app should not fight the browser. Are you listening, Google?
How the IETF redefined the process of creating standards.
To some visionary pioneers, such as Ted Nelson, who had been developing a purist hypertext paradigm called Xanadu for decades, the browser represented an undesirably messy direction for the evolution of the Internet. To pragmatists, the browser represented important software evolving as it should: in a pluralistic way, embodying many contending ideas, through what the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) calls “rough consensus and running code.”
Analysing what the web is. It’s not the technology stack.
To count as being part of the web, your app or page must:
- Be linkable, and
- Allow any client to access it.
I think that’s a pretty good definition.
Mind you, I think this is a bit rich in an article published on The Verge:
The HTML web may be slow and annoying and processor intensive, but before we rush too fast into replacing it, let’s not lose what’s good about it.
Still, we can agree on this:
Preserving the web, or more specifically the open principles behind it, means protecting one of the few paths for innovation left in the modern tech world that doesn’t have a giant company acting as a gatekeeper.
With New Browser Tech, Apple Preserves Privacy and Google Preserves Trackers | Electronic Frontier Foundation
It’s interesting to see how excessive surveillance is (finally!) being treated as damage and routed around. Apple seem to get it—they’re tackling the tracking issue. Meanwhile Google are focusing purely on the visibility and UX of invasive advertising, without taking steps against tracking.
There’s a huge opportunity here for Chrome’s competitors—if Firefox and Safari protect users from unwarranted tracking, that could be enough to get people to switch, regardless of the feature sets of the browsers.
This is an excellent move by Apple—interpreting cross-site tracking as damage and routing around it.
Got questions about the security of service workers? This document probably has the answer.
Domains registered with punycode names (and then given TLS certificates) are worryingly indistinguishable from their ASCII counterparts.
Can you spot the difference between the URLs https://adactio.com and https://аdаctіо.com?
This is a really clear explanation of how CSS works.
So do you really know which are the top browsers, both amongst your existing customers and your potential audience? Perhaps it’s worth taking a closer look; it might just be time to check your site in some of the lesser-known, yet popular browsers like UC, Yandex and Samsung Internet.
A ludicrously deep dive by Nolan into how scrolling works in web browsers. No, wait, come back! It’s more interesting than it sounds …and it certainly isn’t as simple as you might think.
For instance, do you know the difference between the following scenarios?
- User scrolls with two fingers on a touch pad
- User scrolls with one finger on a touch screen
- User scrolls with a mouse wheel on a physical mouse
- User clicks the sidebar and drags it up and down
- User presses up, down, PageUp, PageDown, or spacebar keys on a keyboard
If you ask the average web user (or even the average web developer!) they might tell you that these interactions are all equivalent. The truth is far more interesting.
This comes complete with lovely animated illustrations by Rachel.
The second part of Bruce’s excellent series begins by focusing on the usage of proxy browsers around the world:
But how!? Well, Bruce has the answer:
I call this amazing new technique “progressive enhancement.”
You heard it here first, folks!
A damning assessment of Tim Berners-Lee’s defeatist portrayal of the W3C:
No matter which side is right, the W3C faces an existential crisis.
- The W3C is a shepherd of the web for all, the web on everything, and a web of trust. But now it is fundamentally compromising its own principles in the name of maintaining industry relevance.
- Or, the W3C is merely an industry body for browser vendors to collaborate and its mission statement is nothing more than PR to increase buy-in from the smaller, largely powerless, members.
Both can’t be true. Neither is good news for the organisation.
Much as I respect Tim Berners-Lee, his logic here is completely flawed. First of all, treating DRM as though it’s an implacable force of nature is a category error. Secondly, EME doesn’t in any provide a standardised solution: it provides a sandbox for each DRM vendor to inject their own proprietary solution.