| > - With media queries in CSS my page can be responsive, scaling its size and content from 320px smartphones to multi-monitor desktops. I guess I just don't want my pages to change, just
want them to look the same. On a big screen on a desktop
computer, one of my pages is still just 800 pixels
wide -- that's all I need for what I'm trying to
display to the user. I'm not trying to take up his
whole screen. I see what from the user side Google has
done with AJAX -- it's nice. But Google
has nearly infinite money and wants the
most polished UI/UX they can get. But there's
some irony here: In most respects, the Google
screens are quite simple, and nothing "jumps
around" either during loading or usage. And the
loading is fast. For sending one of my screens, I need send
only 400,000 bits; so, my screens should
send and load quickly. I'll consider semantic tags. Thanks. Yes, multi-page forms could be a bummer;
each of my forms fits easily on just one
page. But my UI is just dirt simple
for the user. For > old hardware and software I'm not sure what I'm running is too old
to matter. But if there are such users,
then maybe they will like my pages because
I suspect that the pages will look fine
in any browser up to date as of 5, maybe
10, years ago. > It's not hard to go overboard with modern web tech That's an impression I got. I've had a related point: Let's compare, say,
the Microsoft Word UI and Web page
UIs of, say, 10 years ago. Then,
the Word UI can take weeks to master, for
just that one program, more for Excel,
more for Outlook (I finally found how to
increase the font sizes, etc. in Outlook),
while there were tens of million of
Web sites 1+ billion people could use right
away. Why? Because all the sites were
simple and similar. Lesson: If Web
programming offers as much opportunity for
unique UIs, then we could lose the big
advantage of the Web that anyone can
use any page quickly. If that happens,
then I want to vote with the majority
and let others have unique UIs. |