Tags: javascript

824

sparkline

Tuesday, May 21st, 2019

What Does it Mean to Be “Full Stack”? | CSS-Tricks

I’m not trying to convince anyone they aren’t a full-stack developer or don’t deserve that particular merit badge — just that the web is a big place with divergent needs and ever-morphing stacks that all require different sets of skills.

Thursday, May 16th, 2019

Welcome to Acccessible App | Accessible App

A very welcome project from Marcus Herrmann, documenting how to make common interaction patterns accessible in popular frameworks: Vue, React, and Angular.

Thursday, May 9th, 2019

Distinguishing cached vs. network HTML requests in a Service Worker | Trys Mudford

Less than 24 hours after I put the call out for a solution to this gnarly service worker challenge, Trys has come up with a solution.

Wednesday, May 8th, 2019

Timing out

Service workers are great for creating a good user experience when someone is offline. Heck, the book I wrote about service workers is literally called Going Offline.

But in some ways, the offline experience is relatively easy to handle. It’s a binary situation; either you’re online or you’re offline. What’s more challenging—and probably more common—is the situation that Jake calls Lie-Fi. That’s when technically you’ve got a network connection …but it’s a shitty connection, like one bar of mobile signal. In that situation, because there’s technically a connection, the user gets a slow frustrating experience. Whatever code you’ve got in your service worker for handling offline situations will never get triggered. When you’re handling fetch events inside a service worker, there’s no automatic time-out.

But you can make one.

That’s what I’ve done recently here on adactio.com. Before showing you what I added to my service worker script to make that happen, let me walk you through my existing strategy for handling offline situations.

Service worker strategies

Alright, so in my service worker script, I’ve got a block of code for handling requests from fetch events:

addEventListener('fetch', fetchEvent => {
        const request = fetchEvent.request;
    // Do something with this request.
});

I’ve got two strategies in my code. One is for dealing with requests for pages:

if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
    // Code for handling page requests.
}

By adding an else clause I can have a different strategy for dealing with requests for anything else—images, style sheets, scripts, and so on:

if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
    // Code for handling page requests.
} else {
    // Code for handling everthing else.
}

For page requests, I’m going to try to go the network first:

fetchEvent.respondWith(
    fetch(request)
    .then( responseFromFetch => {
        return responseFromFetch;
    })

My logic is:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network.

If that doesn’t work, we’re in an offline situation. That triggers the catch clause. That’s where I have my offline strategy: show a custom offline page that I’ve previously cached (during the install event):

.catch( fetchError => {
    return caches.match('/offline');
})

Now my logic has been expanded to this:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network, but if that doesn’t work, show a custom offline page instead.

So my overall code for dealing with requests for pages looks like this:

if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
    fetchEvent.respondWith(
        fetch(request)
        .then( responseFromFetch => {
            return responseFromFetch;
        })
        .catch( fetchError => {
            return caches.match('/offline');
        })
    );
}

Now I can fill in the else statement that handles everything else—images, style sheets, scripts, and so on. Here my strategy is different. I’m looking in my caches first, and I only fetch the file from network if the file can’t be found in any cache:

caches.match(request)
.then( responseFromCache => {
    return responseFromCache || fetch(request);
})

Here’s all that fetch-handling code put together:

addEventListener('fetch', fetchEvent => {
    const request = fetchEvent.request;
    if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
        fetchEvent.respondWith(
            fetch(request)
            .then( responseFromFetch => {
                return responseFromFetch;
            })
            .catch( fetchError => {
                return caches.match('/offline');
            })
        );
    } else {
        caches.match(request)
        .then( responseFromCache => {
            return responseFromCache || fetch(request);
        })
    }
});

Good.

Cache as you go

Now I want to introduce an extra step in the part of the code where I deal with requests for pages. Whenever I fetch a page from the network, I’m going to take the opportunity to squirrel it away in a cache. I’m calling that cache “pages”. I’m imaginative like that.

fetchEvent.respondWith(
    fetch(request)
    .then( responseFromFetch => {
        const copy = responseFromFetch.clone();
        try {
            fetchEvent.waitUntil(
                caches.open('pages')
                .then( pagesCache => {
                    return pagesCache.put(request, copy);
                })
            )
        } catch(error) {
            console.error(error);
        }
        return responseFromFetch;
    })

You’ll notice that I can’t put the response itself (responseFromCache) into the cache. That’s a stream that I only get to use once. Instead I need to make a copy:

const copy = responseFromFetch.clone();

That’s what gets put in the pages cache:

fetchEvent.waitUntil(
    caches.open('pages')
    .then( pagesCache => {
        return pagesCache.put(request, copy);
    })
)

Now my logic for page requests has an extra piece to it:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network and store a copy in a cache, but if that doesn’t work, show a custom offline page instead.

Here’s my updated fetch-handling code:

addEventListener('fetch', fetchEvent => {
    const request = fetchEvent.request;
    if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
        fetchEvent.respondWith(
            fetch(request)
            .then( responseFromFetch => {
                const copy = responseFromFetch.clone();
                try {
                    fetchEvent.waitUntil(
                        caches.open('pages')
                        .then( pagesCache => {
                            return pagesCache.put(request, copy);
                        })
                    )
                } catch(error) {
                    console.error(error);
                }
                return responseFromFetch;
            })
            .catch( fetchError => {
                return caches.match('/offline');
            })
        );
    } else {
        caches.match(request)
        .then( responseFromCache => {
            return responseFromCache || fetch(request);
        })
    }
});

I call this the cache-as-you-go pattern. The more pages someone views on my site, the more pages they’ll have cached.

Now that there’s an ever-growing cache of previously visited pages, I can update my offline fallback. Currently, I reach straight for the custom offline page:

.catch( fetchError => {
    return caches.match('/offline');
})

But now I can try looking for a cached copy of the requested page first:

.catch( fetchError => {
    caches.match(request)
    .then( responseFromCache => {
        return responseFromCache || caches.match('/offline');
    })
});

Now my offline logic is expanded:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network and store a copy in a cache, but if that doesn’t work, first look for an existing copy in a cache, and otherwise show a custom offline page instead.

I can also access this ever-growing cache of pages from my custom offline page to show people which pages they can revisit, even if there’s no internet connection.

So far, so good. Everything I’ve outlined so far is a good robust strategy for handling offline situations. Now I’m going to deal with the lie-fi situation, and it’s that cache-as-you-go strategy that sets me up nicely.

Timing out

I want to throw this addition into my logic:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network and store a copy in a cache, but if that doesn’t work, first look for an existing copy in a cache, and otherwise show a custom offline page instead (but if the request is taking too long, try to show a cached version of the page).

The first thing I’m going to do is rewrite my code a bit. If the fetch event is for a page, I’m going to respond with a promise:

if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
    fetchEvent.respondWith(
        new Promise( resolveWithResponse => {
            // Code for handling page requests.
        })
    );
}

Promises are kind of weird things to get your head around. They’re tailor-made for doing things asynchronously. You can set up two parameters; a success condition and a failure condition. If the success condition is executed, then we say the promise has resolved. If the failure condition is executed, then the promise rejects.

In my re-written code, I’m calling the success condition resolveWithResponse (and I haven’t bothered with a failure condition, tsk, tsk). I’m going to use resolveWithResponse in my promise everywhere that I used to have a return statement:

addEventListener('fetch', fetchEvent => {
    const request = fetchEvent.request;
    if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
        fetchEvent.respondWith(
            new Promise( resolveWithResponse => {
                fetch(request)
                .then( responseFromFetch => {
                    const copy = responseFromFetch.clone();
                    try {
                        fetchEvent.waitUntil(
                            caches.open('pages')
                            then( pagesCache => {
                                return pagesCache.put(request, copy);
                            })
                        )
                    } catch(error) {
                        console.error(error);
                    }
                    resolveWithResponse(responseFromFetch);
                })
                .catch( fetchError => {
                    caches.match(request)
                    .then( responseFromCache => {
                        resolveWithResponse(
                            responseFromCache || caches.match('/offline')
                        );
                    })
                })
            })
        );
    } else {
        caches.match(request)
        .then( responseFromCache => {
            return responseFromCache || fetch(request);
        })
    }
});

By itself, rewriting my code as a promise doesn’t change anything. Everything’s working the same as it did before. But now I can introduce the time-out logic. I’m going to put this inside my promise:

const timer = setTimeout( () => {
    caches.match(request)
    .then( responseFromCache => {
        if (responseFromCache) {
            resolveWithResponse(responseFromCache);
        }
    })
}, 3000);

If a request takes three seconds (3000 milliseconds), then that code will execute. At that point, the promise attempts to resolve with a response from the cache instead of waiting for the network. If there is a cached response, that’s what the user now gets. If there isn’t, then the wait continues for the network.

The last thing left for me to do is cancel the countdown to timing out if a network response does return within three seconds. So I put this in the then clause that’s triggered by a successful network response:

clearTimeout(timer);

I also add the clearTimeout statement to the catch clause that handles offline situations. Here’s the final code:

addEventListener('fetch', fetchEvent => {
    const request = fetchEvent.request;
    if (request.headers.get('Accept').includes('text/html')) {
        fetchEvent.respondWith(
            new Promise( resolveWithResponse => {
                const timer = setTimeout( () => {
                    caches.match(request)
                    .then( responseFromCache => {
                        if (responseFromCache) {
                            resolveWithResponse(responseFromCache);
                        }
                    })
                }, 3000);
                fetch(request)
                .then( responseFromFetch => {
                    clearTimeout(timer);
                    const copy = responseFromFetch.clone();
                    try {
                        fetchEvent.waitUntil(
                            caches.open('pages')
                            then( pagesCache => {
                                return pagesCache.put(request, copy);
                            })
                        )
                    } catch(error) {
                        console.error(error);
                    }
                    resolveWithResponse(responseFromFetch);
                })
                .catch( fetchError => {
                    clearTimeout(timer);
                    caches.match(request)
                    .then( responseFromCache => {
                        resolveWithResponse(
                            responseFromCache || caches.match('/offline')
                        );
                    })
                })
            })
        );
    } else {
        caches.match(request)
        .then( responseFromCache => {
            return responseFromCache || fetch(request)
        })
    }
});

That’s the JavaScript translation of this logic:

When someone requests a page, try to fetch it from the network and store a copy in a cache, but if that doesn’t work, first look for an existing copy in a cache, and otherwise show a custom offline page instead (but if the request is taking too long, try to show a cached version of the page).

For everything else, try finding a cached version first, otherwise fetch it from the network.

Pros and cons

As with all service worker enhancements to a website, this strategy will do absolutely nothing for first-time visitors. If you’ve never visited my site before, you’ve got nothing cached. But the more you return to the site, the more your cache is primed for speedy retrieval.

I think that serving up a cached copy of a page when the network connection is flaky is a pretty good strategy …most of the time. If we’re talking about a blog post on this site, then sure, there won’t be much that the reader is missing out on—a fixed typo or ten; maybe some additional webmentions at the end of a post. But if we’re talking about the home page, then a reader with a flaky network connection might think there’s nothing new to read when they’re served up a stale version.

What I’d really like is some way to know—on the client side—whether or not the currently-loaded page came from a cache or from a network. Then I could add some kind of interface element that says, “Hey, this page might be stale—click here if you want to check for a fresher version.” I’d also need some way in the service worker to identify any requests originating from that interface element and make sure they always go out to the network.

I think that should be doable somehow. If you can think of a way to do it, please share it. Write a blog post and send me the link.

But even without the option to over-ride the time-out, I’m glad that I’m at least doing something to handle the lie-fi situation. Perhaps I should write a sequel to Going Offline called Still Online But Only In Theory Because The Connection Sucks.

Tuesday, May 7th, 2019

JavaScript pedalboard

Effects pedals in the browser, using the Web Audio API. Very cool!

Be sure to read Trys’s write-up too.

Thursday, May 2nd, 2019

Frameworking

There are many reasons to use a JavaScript framework like Vue, Angular, or React. Last year, Nicole asked for some of those reasons. Her question received many, many answers from people pointing out the benefits of using a framework. Interesingly, though, not a single one of those benefits was for end users.

(Mind you, if the framework is being used on the server to pre-render pages, then it’s a moot point—in that situation, it makes no difference to the end user whether you use a framework or not.)

Hidde recently tried using a client-side JavaScript framework for the first time and documented the process:

In the last few months I built my very first framework-based front-end, in Vue.js. I complemented it with a router, a store and a GraphQL library, in order to have, respectively, multiple (virtual) pages, globally shared data and a smart way to load new data in my templates.

It’s a very even-handed write-up. I highly recommend reading it. He describes the pros and cons of using a framework and using vanilla JavaScript:

I am glad I tried a framework and found its features were extremely helpful in creating a consistent interface for my users. My hope is though, that I won’t forget about vanilla. It’s perfectly valid to build a website with no or few dependencies.

Speaking of vanilla JavaScript… the blogging machine that is Chris Ferdinandi also wrote a comparison post recently, asking Why do people choose frameworks over vanilla JS? Again, it’s very even-handed and well worth a read. He readily concedes that if you’re working at scale, a framework is almost certainly a good idea:

If you’re building a large scale application (literally Facebook, Twitter, QuickBooks scale), the performance wins of a framework make the overhead worth it.

Alas, I’ve seen many, many framework-driven sites that are most definitely not that operating at that scale. Trys speaks the honest truth here:

We kid ourselves into thinking we’re building groundbreakingly complex systems that require bleeding-edge tools, but in reality, much of what we build is a way to render two things: a list, and a single item. Here are some users, here is a user. Here are your contacts, here are your messages with that contact. There ain’t much more to it than that.

Just the other day, I saw a new site launch that was mostly a marketing site—the home page weighed over five megabytes, two megabytes of which were taken up with JavaScript, and the whole thing required JavaScript to render text to the screen (I’m not going to link to it because I don’t want to engage in any kind of public shaming and finger-wagging).

I worry that all the perfectly valid (developer experience) reasons for using a framwork are outweighing the more important (user experience) reasons for avoiding shipping your dependencies to end users. Like Alex says:

If your conception of “DX” doesn’t include it, or isn’t subservient to the user experience, rethink.

And yes, I am going to take this opportunity to link once again to Alex’s article The “Developer Experience” Bait-and-Switch. Please read it if you haven’t already. Please re-read it if you have.

Anyway, my main reason for writing this is to point you to thoughtful posts like Hidde’s and Chris’s. I think it’s great to see people thoughtfully weighing up the pros and cons of choosing any particular technology—I’m a bit obsessed with the topic of evaluating technology.

If you’re weighing up the pros and cons of using, say, a particular JavaScript library or framework, that’s wonderful. My worry is that there are people working in front-end development who aren’t putting that level of thought into their technology choices, but are instead using a particular framework because it’s what they’re used to.

To quote Grace Hopper:

The most dangerous phrase in the language is, ‘We’ve always done it this way.’

AMP as your web framework – The AMP Blog

The bait’n’switch is laid bare. First, AMP is positioned as a separate format. Then, only AMP pages are allowed ranking in the top stories carousel. Now, let’s pretend none of that ever happened and act as though AMP is just another framework. Oh, and those separate AMP pages that you made? Turns out that was all just “transitional” and you’re supposed to make your entire site in AMP now.

I would genuinely love to know how the Polymer team at Google feel about this pivot. Everything claimed in this blog post about AMP is actually true of Polymer (and other libraries of web components that don’t have the luxury of bribing developers with SEO ranking).

Some alternative facts from the introduction:

AMP isn’t another “channel” or “format” that’s somehow not the web.

Weird …because that’s exactly how it was sold to us (as a direct competitor to similar offerings from Apple and Facebook).

It’s not an SEO thing.

That it outright false. Ask any company actually using AMP why they use it.

It’s not a replacement for HTML.

And yet, the article goes on to try convince you to replace HTML with AMP.

Friday, April 26th, 2019

How I failed the <a>

I think the situation that Remy outlines here is quite common (in client-rehydrated server-rendered pages), but what’s less common is Remy’s questioning and iteration.

So I now have a simple rule of thumb: if there’s an onClick, there’s got to be an anchor around the component.

Wednesday, April 24th, 2019

Interview with Kyle Simpson (O’Reilly Fluent Conference 2016) - YouTube

I missed this when it was first posted three years ago, but now I think I’ll be revisiting this 12 minute interview every few months.

Everything that Kyle says here is spot on, nuanced, and thoughtful. He talks about abstraction, maintainability, learning, and complexity.

I want a transcript of the whole thing.

Front-end Developer Handbook 2019 - Learn the entire JavaScript, CSS and HTML development practice!

The 2019 edition of Cody Lindley’s book is a good jumping-off point with lots of links to handy resources.

Monday, April 15th, 2019

Saturday, April 13th, 2019

Offline fallback page with service worker - Modern Web Development: Tales of a Developer Advocate by Paul Kinlan

Paul describes a fairly straightforward service worker recipe: a custom offline page for failed requests.

Inline an SVG file in HTML, declaratively & asynchronously!

Woah! This is one smart hack!

Scott has figured out a way to get all the benefits of pointing to an external SVG file …that then gets embedded. This means you can get all the styling and scripting benefits that only apply to embedded SVGs (like using fill).

The fallback is very graceful indeed: you still get the SVG (just not embedded).

Now imagine using this technique for chunks of HTML too …transclusion, baby!

Friday, April 12th, 2019

Disenchantment - Tim Novis

I would urge front-end developers to take a step back, breathe, and reassess. Let’s stop over engineering for the sake of it. Let’s think what we can do with the basic tools, progressive enhancement and a simpler approach to building websites. There are absolutely valid usecases for SPAs, React, et al. and I’ll continue to use these tools reguarly and when it’s necessary, I’m just not sure that’s 100% of the time.

Wednesday, April 10th, 2019

Split

When I talk about evaluating technology for front-end development, I like to draw a distinction between two categories of technology.

On the one hand, you’ve got the raw materials of the web: HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. This is what users will ultimately interact with.

On the other hand, you’ve got all the tools and technologies that help you produce the HTML, CSS, and JavaScript: pre-processors, post-processors, transpilers, bundlers, and other build tools.

Personally, I’m much more interested and excited by the materials than I am by the tools. But I think it’s right and proper that other developers are excited by the tools. A good balance of both is probably the healthiest mix.

I’m never sure what to call these two categories. Maybe the materials are the “external” technologies, because they’re what users will interact with. Whereas all the other technologies—that mosty live on a developer’s machine—are the “internal” technologies.

Another nice phrase is something I heard during Chris’s talk at An Event Apart in Seattle, when he quoted Brad, who talked about the front of the front end and the back of the front end.

I’m definitely more of a front-of-the-front-end kind of developer. I have opinions on the quality of the materials that get served up to users; the output should be accessible and performant. But I don’t particularly care about the tools that produced those materials on the back of the front end. Use whatever works for you (or whatever works for your team).

As a user-centred developer, my priority is doing what’s best for end users. That’s not to say I don’t value developer convenience. I do. But I prioritise user needs over developer needs. And in any case, those two needs don’t even come into conflict most of the time. Like I said, from a user’s point of view, it’s irrelevant what text editor or version control system you use.

Now, you could make the argument that anything that is good for developer convenience is automatically good for user experience because faster, more efficient development should result in better output. While that’s true in theory, I highly recommend Alex’s post, The “Developer Experience” Bait-and-Switch.

Where it gets interesting is when a technology that’s designed for developer convenience is made out of the very materials being delivered to users. For example, a CSS framework like Bootstrap is made of CSS. That’s different to a tool like Sass which outputs CSS. Whether or not a developer chooses to use Sass is irrelevant to the user—the final output will be CSS either way. But if a developer chooses to use a CSS framework, that decision has a direct impact on the user experience. The user must download the framework in order for the developer to get the benefit.

So whereas Sass sits at the back of the front end—where I don’t care what you use—Bootstrap sits at the front of the front end. For tools like that, I don’t think saying “use whatever works for you” is good enough. It’s got to be weighed against the cost to the user.

Historically, it’s been a similar story with JavaScript libraries. They’re written in JavaScript, and so they’re going to be executed in the browser. If a developer wanted to use jQuery to make their life easier, the user paid the price in downloading the jQuery library.

But I’ve noticed a welcome change with some of the bigger JavaScript frameworks. Whereas the initial messaging around frameworks like React touted the benefits of state management and the virtual DOM, I feel like that’s not as prevalent now. You’re much more likely to hear people—quite rightly—talk about the benefits of modularity and componentisation. If you combine that with the rise of Node—which means that JavaScript is no longer confined to the browser—then these frameworks can move from the front of the front end to the back of the front end.

We’ve certainly seen that at Clearleft. We’ve worked on multiple React projects, but in every case, the output was server-rendered. Developers get the benefit of working with a tool that helps them. Users don’t pay the price.

For me, this question of whether a framework will be used on the client side or the server side is crucial.

Let me tell you about a Clearleft project that sticks in my mind. We were working with a big international client on a product that was going to be rolled out to students and teachers in developing countries. This was right up my alley! We did plenty of research into network conditions and typical device usage. That then informed a tight performance budget. Every design decision—from web fonts to images—was informed by that performance budget. We were producing lean, mean markup, CSS, and JavaScript. But we weren’t the ones implementing the final site. That was being done by the client’s offshore software team, and they insisted on using React. “That’s okay”, I thought. “React can be used server-side so we can still output just what’s needed, right?” Alas, no. These developers did everything client side. When the final site launched, the log-in screen alone required megabytes of JavaScript just to render a form. It was, in my opinion, entirely unfit for purpose. It still pains me when I think about it.

That was a few years ago. I think that these days it has become a lot easier to make the decision to use a framework on the back of the front end. Like I said, that’s certainly been the case on recent Clearleft projects that involved React or Vue.

It surprises me, then, when I see the question of server rendering or client rendering treated almost like an implementation detail. It might be an implementation detail from a developer’s perspective, but it’s a key decision for the user experience. The performance cost of putting your entire tech stack into the browser can be enormous.

Alex Sanders from the development team at The Guardian published a post recently called Revisiting the rendering tier . In it, he describes how they’re moving to React. Now, if this were a move to client-rendered React, that would make a big impact on the user experience. The thing is, I couldn’t tell from the article whether React was going to be used in the browser or on the server. The article talks about “rendering”—which is something that browsers do—and “the DOM”—which is something that only exists in browsers.

So I asked. It turns out that this plan is very much about generating HTML and CSS on the server before sending it to the browser. Excellent!

With that question answered, I’m cool with whatever they choose to use. In this case, they’re choosing to use CSS-in-JS (although, to be pedantic, there’s no C anymore so technically it’s SS-in-JS). As long as the “JS” part is JavaScript on a server, then it makes no difference to the end user, and therefore no difference to me. Not my circus, not my monkeys. For users, the end result is the same whether styling is applied via a selector in an external stylesheet or, for example, via an inline style declaration (and in some situations, a server-rendered CSS-in-JS solution might be better for performance). And so, as a user-centred developer, this is something that I don’t need to care about.

Except…

I have misgivings. But just to be clear, these misgivings have nothing to do with users. My misgivings are entirely to do with another group of people: the people who make websites.

There’s a second-order effect. By making React—or even JavaScript in general—a requirement for styling something on a web page, the barrier to entry is raised.

At least, I think that the barrier to entry is raised. I completely acknowledge that this is a subjective judgement. In fact, the reason why a team might decide to make JavaScript a requirement for participation might well be because they believe it makes it easier for people to participate. Let me explain…

It wasn’t that long ago that devs coming from a Computer Science background were deriding CSS for its simplicity, complaining that “it’s broken” and turning their noses up at it. That rhetoric, thankfully, is waning. Nowadays they’re far more likely to acknowledge that CSS might be simple, but it isn’t easy. Concepts like the cascade and specificity are real head-scratchers, and any prior knowledge from imperative programming languages won’t help you in this declarative world—all your hard-won experience and know-how isn’t fungible. Instead, it seems as though all this cascading and specificity is butchering the modularity of your nicely isolated components.

It’s no surprise that programmers with this kind of background would treat CSS as damage and find ways to route around it. The many flavours of CSS-in-JS are testament to this. From a programmer’s point of view, this solution has made things easier. Best of all, as long as it’s being done on the server, there’s no penalty for end users. But now the price is paid in the diversity of your team. In order to participate, a Computer Science programming mindset is now pretty much a requirement. For someone coming from a more declarative background—with really good HTML and CSS skills—everything suddenly seems needlessly complex. And as Tantek observed:

Complexity reinforces privilege.

The result is a form of gatekeeping. I don’t think it’s intentional. I don’t think it’s malicious. It’s being done with the best of intentions, in pursuit of efficiency and productivity. But these code decisions are reflected in hiring practices that exclude people with different but equally valuable skills and perspectives.

Rachel describes HTML, CSS and our vanishing industry entry points:

If we make it so that you have to understand programming to even start, then we take something open and enabling, and place it back in the hands of those who are already privileged.

I think there’s a comparison here with toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is obviously terrible for women, but it’s also really shitty for men in the way it stigmatises any male behaviour that doesn’t fit its worldview. Likewise, if the only people your team is interested in hiring are traditional programmers, then those programmers are going to resent having to spend their time dealing with semantic markup, accessibility, styling, and other disciplines that they never trained in. Heydon correctly identifies this as reluctant gatekeeping:

By assuming the role of the Full Stack Developer (which is, in practice, a computer scientist who also writes HTML and CSS), one takes responsibility for all the code, in spite of its radical variance in syntax and purpose, and becomes the gatekeeper of at least some kinds of code one simply doesn’t care about writing well.

This hurts everyone. It’s bad for your team. It’s even worse for the wider development community.

Last year, I was asked “Is there a fear or professional challenge that keeps you up at night?” I responded:

My greatest fear for the web is that it becomes the domain of an elite priesthood of developers. I firmly believe that, as Tim Berners-Lee put it, “this is for everyone.” And I don’t just mean it’s for everyone to use—I believe it’s for everyone to make as well. That’s why I get very worried by anything that raises the barrier to entry to web design and web development.

I’ve described a number of dichotomies here:

  • Materials vs. tools,
  • Front of the front end vs. back of the front end,
  • User experience vs. developer experience,
  • Client-side rendering vs. server-side rendering,
  • Declarative languages vs. imperative languages.

But the split that worries the most is this:

  • The people who make the web vs. the people who are excluded from making the web.

Web Components will replace your frontend framework

I’ve often said that the goal of a good library should be to make itself redundant. jQuery is the poster child for that, and this article points to web components as the way to standardise what’s already happening in JavaScript frameworks:

Remember when document.querySelector first got wide browser support and started to end jQuery’s ubiquity? It finally gave us a way to do natively what jQuery had been providing for years: easy selection of DOM elements. I believe the same is about to happen to frontend frameworks like Angular and React.

The article goes on to give a good technical overview of custom elements, templates, and the Shadow DOM, but I was surprised to see it making reference to the is syntax for extending existing HTML elements—I’m pretty sure that that is, sadly, dead in the water.

Monday, April 8th, 2019

Why you should learn vanilla JS first | Go Make Things

Frameworks (arguably) make building complex applications easier, but they make doing simple stuff more complex.

And that’s why I think people should learn vanilla JS first. I’ve had many students who tried to learn frameworks get frustated, quit, and focus on vanilla JS.

Some of them have gone back to frameworks later, and told me that knowing vanilla JS made it a lot easier for them to pick up frameworks afterwards.

Break out of the echo chamber - Andy Bell

So much of my echo chamber is consumed by people, including myself, who have a very dim view of JavaScript frameworks being thrown at everything, arguing with the people who are in the process of throwing JavaScript frameworks at everything. We forget one very important thing, though: we represent the minority of the web community and our arguments probably look very pointless and silly to the majority.

Friday, April 5th, 2019

You probably don’t need that hip web framework - Charged

This is a bit ranty but it resonates with what I’ve been noticing lately:

I’ve discovered how many others have felt similarly, overwhelmed by the choices we have as modern developers, always feeling like there’s something we should be doing better.

Thursday, April 4th, 2019

A progressive disclosure component - Andy Bell

This is a really nice write-up of creating an accessible progressive disclosure widget (a show/hide toggle).

Where it gets really interesting is when Andy shows how it could all be encapsulated into a web component with a progressive enhancement mindset