Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoorayimhelping | Hacker News Reader

I have no idea. I do a lot of front end work in React, and the assumption that an SPA is a better experience for people because you don't have to do a page reload to see a new page is really baffling to me. It's widespread too - across industries and disciplines and age ranges, as if the people suggesting these things have never used SPAs.

View on HN

Because page reloads are jarring and discontinuous experiences. They run counter to a good user experience. That's not to say that every SPA is a good user experience, but just that a page reload is not part of the recipe for a good user experience.

HN uses the "old fashioned" approach of rendering everything server side and every link forces a page reload and I wouldn't describe the experience as "jarring and discontinuous".

I'd rather have a fast full page reload than looking at a spinner while complex client side stuff does its stuff.

[NB I really like React and when good SPAs are very very good - but a lot aren't].

On that note, it means HN supports for free one feature too-often forgotten about in single-page apps: middle-click, or, right-click-open-in-new-tab.

Well, the up/downvote transition is client side, but otherwise, yes.

AFAIK it works without js as well :-)

I occasionally suggest to people who complain on HN about the bad old days of table based layouts to do a "View Source" ;-)

The "bad old days of table based layouts" weren't really that bad, as evidenced by every generation of web developers reinventing tables in weird new ways. From "semantic" div soups through flexbox to CSS grid, it seems to me that most of layouting work is just building tables without using the <table> tag ;).

There were real arguments against layout tables back in the day (though the situation may have changed): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/83073/why-not-use-tables...

One thing for sure: layout tables are undeniably powerful, that's why people want to recreate them but without the penalties that come with real <table>.

Yeah, they were. Though arguably not in the link you posted - those are mostly clichés, as correctly pointed out by the original poster. Especially the "separation of content from layout" and CSS Zen Garden were obviously[0] nonsense, and you can observe how SPAs of today go against both.

Tables had performance problems when they got large and content got potentially dynamic. That I learned only many, many years later - I never did sites big enough to run into such problems then.

The accepted answer in this post is cringeworthy. So much rationalization these days, makes you wonder what we're rationalizing today.

[0] - I admit I bought the CSS Zen Garden for a while; it took me some time and experience to realize that, really, no one does that in practice, and it requires ridiculous amounts of either forethought or afterhacks to do it.

There's definitely parts that are awkward though. I can't see the context of your comment in my reply as it's on a completely different page for example. HN has never really been a great UI though, it used to be a massive set of nested tables that didn't render properly on a mobile, it has some tiny fonts and hard to click buttons, and has unliked comments just less accessible by lowering contrast.

It's good enough to read the content and the content is the vital part, but I wouldn't point to HN for a good user experience (beyond the content and lack of dark patterns).

Yet even this crucible of anti design is more usable than many a designer blessed SPA. Thus is the power of server side rendering.

It's better than many server side rendered pages, the things that work have nothing to do with where the rendering happens.

I feel hn experience is awesome. Everything is accessible with one or two clicks. I never wait for something to load, never pest against it because of some obscure behavior. It's simple and efficient. The content is perfectly served. No frills. Even on mobile I don't really feel the buttons so hard to click, even if they are tiny. Maybe we don't use it the same way.

HN is not what I would consider an “app” though. The content is mostly static, with a few interactive bits (upvote/downvote etc.) sprinkled in.

Page reloads are not jarring, they are expected, well understood, and often add that subtle hint that something has indeed changed. People want reliability and familiarity over speed, and speed from the lack of heavy JS and wonky click handling is a bonus.

Compare the site you're on right now (HN) to Reddit's new SPA frontend. Which one is faster to browse?

A page reload is part of the expected experience on a traditional site when you're navigating to a new page. I expect it to look like I'm going to a new screen, not simply replacing the content on the existing screen. Not every website is an app or should act like one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com