progressive enhancement

Test your site in Lynx

When was the last time you tested your website in a text-only browser like Lynx (or ELinks, or one of several others)? Perhaps you should.

I’m a big fan of CSS Naked Day. I love the idea of JS Naked Day, although I missed it earlier this month (I was busy abroad, plus my aggressive caching, including in service workers, makes it hard to reliably make sweeping changes for short periods). I’m a big fan of the idea that, for the vast majority of websites, if it isn’t at least usable without any CSS or JavaScript, it should probably be considered broken.

This year, I thought I’d celebrate the events by testing DanQ.me in the most-limited browser I had to-hand: Lynx. Lynx has zero CSS or JavaScript support, along with limited-to-no support for heading levels, tables, images, etc. That may seem extreme, but it’s a reasonable analogue for the level of functionality you might routinely expect to see in the toughest environments in which your site is accessed: slow 2G connections from old mobile hardware, people on the other side of highly-restrictive firewalls or overenthusiastic privacy and security software, and of course users of accessibility technologies.

Here’s what broke (and some other observations):

`<link rel="alternate">`s at the top

I see the thinking that Lynx (and in an even more-extreme fashion, ELinks) have with showing “alternate versions” of a page at the top, but it’s not terribly helpful: most of mine are designed to help robots, not humans!

I wonder if switching from <link rel="alternate"> elements to Link: HTTP headers would indicate to Lynx that it shouldn’t be putting these URLs in humans’ faces, while still making them accessible to all the services that expect to find them? Doing so would require some changes to my caching logic, but might result in a cleaner, more human-readable HTML file as a side-effect. Possibly something worth investigating.

Fortunately, I ensure that my <link rel="alternate">s have a title attribute, which is respected by Lynx and ELinks and makes these scroll-past links slightly less-confusing.

Post list indentation

Posts on the homepage are structured a little like this:

<li>
  <a href="...">
    <h2>Post Title</h2>
    <p>...post metadata, image, and things...</p>
  </a>
</li>

Strictly-speaking, that’s not valid. Heading elements are only permitted within flow elements. I chose to implement it that way because it seemed to be the most semantically-correct way to describe the literal “list of posts”. But probably my use of <h2> is not the best solution. Let’s see how Lynx handles it:

It’s not intolerable, but it’s a little ugly.

CSS lightboxes add a step to images

I use a zero-JavaScript approach to image lightboxes: you can see it by clicking on any of the images in this post! It works by creating a (closed) <dialog> at the bottom of the page, for each image. Each <dialog> has a unique id, and the inline image links to that anchor.

Originally, I used a CSS :target selector to detect when the link had been clicked and show the <dialog>. I’ve since changed this to a :has(:target) and directed the link to an element within the dialog, because it works better on browsers without CSS support.

It’s not perfect: in Lynx navigating on an inline image scrolls down to a list of images at the bottom of the page and selects the current one: hitting the link again now offers to download the image. I wonder if I might be better to use a JavaScript-powered lightbox after all!

gopher: and finger: links work perfectly!

I was pleased to discover that gopher: and finger: links to alternate copies of a post… worked perfectly! That shouldn’t be a surprise – Lynx natively supports these protocols.

In a fun quirk and unusually for a standard of its age, the Finger specification did not state the character encoding that ought to be used. I guess the authors just assumed everybody reading it would use ASCII. But both my WordPress-to-Finger bridge and Lynx instead assume that UTF-8 is acceptable (being a superset of ASCII, that seems fair!) which means that emoji work (as shown in the screenshot above). That’s nuts, isn’t it?

You can’t react to anything

Back in November I added the ability to “react” to a post by clicking an emoji, rather than typing out a full comment. Because I was feeling lazy, the feature was (and remains) experimental, and I didn’t consider it essential functionality, I implemented it mostly in JavaScript. Without JavaScript, all you can do is see what others have clicked.

Emoji reactions screenshot showing thumbs up, star eyes, surprise, muscle flex, nausea, and a dinosaur. — The available emoji vary from post to post; I sometimes like to throw a weird/fun one in there, knowing that it’ll invariably be Ruth that clicks it first.

In a browser with no JavaScript but with functional CSS, the buttons correctly appear disabled.

But with neither technology available, as in Lynx, they look like they should work, but just… don’t. Oops.

If I decide to keep the reaction buttons long-term, I’ll probably reimplement them so that they function using plain-old HTML and HTTP, using a <form>, and refactor my JavaScript to properly progressively-enhance the buttons for those that support it. For now, this’ll do.

Comment form honeypot

The comment form on my blog posts works… but there’s a quirk:

At the end of the comments form, an additional <textarea> appears!

That’s an annoyance. It turns out it’s a honeypot added by Akismet: a fake comments field, normally hidden, that tries to trick spam bots into filling it (and thus giving themselves away): sort-of a “reverse CAPTCHA” where the robots do something extra, unintentionally, to prove their inhumanity. Lynx doesn’t understand the code that Akismet uses to hide the form, and so it’s visible to humans, which is suboptimal both because it’s confusing but also because a human who puts details into it is more-likely to be branded a spambot!

I might look into suppressing Akismet adding its honeypot field in the first place, or else consider one of the alternative anti-spam plugins for WordPress. I’ve heard good things about Antispam Bee; I ought to try it at some point.

Overall, it’s pretty good

On the whole, DanQ.me works reasonably well in browsers without any JavaScript or CSS capability, with only a few optional features failing to function fully. There’s always room for improvement, of course, and I’ve got a few things now to add to my “one day” to-do list for my little digital garden.

Obviously, this isn’t really about supporting people using text-mode browsers, who probably represent an incredible minority. It’s about making a real commitment to the semantic web, to accessibility, and to progressive enhancement! That making your site resilient, performant, and accessible also helps make it function in even the most-uncommon of browsers is just a bonus.

Shiftless Progressive Enhancement

Progressive enhancement is a great philosophy for Web application development. Deliver all the essential basic functionality using the simplest standards available; use advanced technologies to add bonus value and convenience features for users whose platform supports them. Win.

In Three Rings, for example, volunteers can see a “starchart” of the volunteering shifts they’ve done recently, at-a-glance, on their profile page¹. In the most basic case, this is usable in its HTML-only form: even with no JavaScript, no CSS, no images even, it still functions. But if JavaScript is enabled, the volunteer can dynamically “filter” the year(s) of volunteering they’re viewing. Basic progressive enhancement.

If a feature requires JavaScript, my usual approach is to use JavaScript to add the relevant user interface to the page in the first place. Those starchart filters in Three Rings don’t appear at all if JavaScript is disabled. A downside to this approach is that the JavaScript necessarily modifies the DOM on page load, which introduces a delay to the page being interactive as well as potentially resulting in layout shift.

That’s not always the best approach. I was reminded of this today by the website of 7-year-old Shiro (produced with, one assumes, at least a little help from Saneef H. Ansari). Take a look at this progressively-enhanced theme switcher:

No layout shift, no DOM manipulation. And yet it’s still pretty clear what features are available.

The HTML that’s delivered over-the-wire provides a disabled <select> element, which gains the CSS directive cursor: not-allowed;, to make it clear to the used that this dropdown doesn’t do anything. The whole thing’s wrapped in a custom element.

When that custom element is defined by the JavaScript, it enhances the dropdown with an event listener that implements the theme changes, then enables the disabled <select>.

<color-schemer>
  <form>
    <label>
      Theme
      <select disabled>
        <option value="">System</option>
        <option value="dark">Dark</option>
        <option value="light" selected>Light</option>
      </select>
    </label>
  </form>
</color-schemer>

I’m not convinced by the necessity of the <form> if there’s no HTML-only fallback… and the <label> probably should use a for="..." rather than wrapping the <select>, but otherwise this code is absolutely gorgeous.

It’s probably no inconvenience to the minority of JS-less users to see a theme switcher than, when they go to use it, turns out to be disabled. But it saves time for virtually everybody not to have to wait for JavaScript to manipulate the DOM, or else to risk shifting the layout by revealing a previously-hidden element.

Altogether, this is a really clever approach, and I was pleased today to be reminded – by a 7-year-old! – of the elegance of this approach. Nice one Shiro (and Saneef!).

Footnotes

¹ Assuming that administrators at the organisation where they volunteer enable this feature for them, of course: Three Rings‘ permission model is robust and highly-customisable. Okay, that’s enough sales pitch.

Lightboxes Without JavaScript

Because I like my blog to be as fast, accessible, and resilient, I try not to use JavaScript for anything I don’t have to¹. One example would be my “lightbox”: the way in which images are blown-up if you click on them:

My solution ensures that:

You can click an image and see a full-window popup dialog box containing a larger version of the image.
The larger version of the image isn’t loaded until it’s needed.
You can close the larger version with a close button. You can also use your browser’s back button.
You can click again to download the larger version/use your browser to zoom in further.
You can share/bookmark etc. the URL of a zoomed-in image and the recipient will see the same image (and return to the image, in the right blog post, if they press the close button).
No HTTP round trip is required when opening/closing a lightbox: it’s functionally-instantaneous.²
No JavaScript is used at all.

Visitors can click on images to see a larger version, with a “close” button. No JavaScript needed.

Here’s how it works –

The Markup

<figure id="img3336" aria-describedby="caption-img3336">
  <a href="#lightbox-img3336" role="button">
    <img src="small-image.jpg" alt="Alt text is important." width="640" height="480">
  </a>
  <figcaption id="caption-img3336">
    Here's the caption.
  </figcaption>
</figure>

... (rest of blog post) ...

<dialog id="lightbox-img3336" class="lightbox">
  <a href="large-image.jpg">
    <img src="large-image.jpg" loading="lazy" alt="Alt text is important.">
  </a>
  <a class="close" href="#img3336" title="Close image" role="button">×</a>
</dialog>

The HTML is pretty simple (and I automatically generate it, of course).

For each lightboxed image in a post, a <dialog> for that image is appended to the post. That dialog contains a larger copy of the image (set to loading="lazy" so the browser have to download it until it’s needed), and a “close” button.

The image in the post contains an anchor link to the dialog; the close button in the dialog links back to the image in the post.³ I wrap the lightbox image itself in a link to the full version of the image, which makes it easier for users to zoom in further using their browser’s own tools, if they like.

Even without CSS, this works (albeit with “scrolling” up and down to the larger image). But the clever bit’s yet to come:

The Style

body:has(dialog:target) {
  /* Prevent page scrolling when lightbox open (for browsers that support :has()) */
  position: fixed;
}

a[href^='#lightbox-'] {
  /* Show 'zoom in' cursor over lightboxed images. */
  cursor: zoom-in;
}

.lightbox {
  /* Lightboxes are hidden by-default, but occupy the full screen and top z-index layer when shown. */
  all: unset;
  display: none;
  position: fixed;
  top: 0;
  left: 0;
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
  z-index: 2;
  background: #333;
}

.lightbox:target {
  /* If the target of the URL points to the lightbox, it becomes visible. */
  display: flex;
}

.lightbox img {
  /* Images fill the lightbox. */
  object-fit: contain;
  height: 100%;
  width: 100%;
}

/* ... extra CSS for styling the close button etc. ... */

Here’s where the magic happens.

Lightboxes are hidden by default (display: none), but configured to fill the window when shown.

They’re shown by the selector .lightbox:target, which is triggered by the id of the <dialog> being referenced by the anchor part of the URL in your address bar!

Summary

It’s neither the most-elegant nor cleanest solution to the problem, but for me it hits a sweet spot between developer experience and user experience. I’m always disappointed when somebody’s “lightbox” requires some heavyweight third-party JavaScript (often loaded from a CDN), because that seems to be the epitome of the “take what the Web gives you for free, throw it away, and reimplement it badly in JavaScript” antipattern.

There’s things I’ve considered adding to my lightbox. Progressively-enhanced JavaScript that adds extra value and/or uses the Popover API where available, perhaps? View Transitions to animate the image “blowing up” to the larger size, while the full-size image loads in the background? Optimistic preloading when hovering over the image⁴? “Previous/next” image links when lightboxing a gallery? There’s lots of potential to expand it without breaking the core concept here.

I’d also like to take a deeper dive into the accessibility implications of this approach: I think it’s pretty good, but accessibility is a big topic and there’s always more to learn.

Close-up of a champagne-coloured French Bulldog wearing a teal jumper, lying in a basket and looking towards the camera. — In the meantime, why not try out my lightbox by clicking on this picture of my dog (photographed here staring longingly at the bacon sandwich picture above, perhaps).

I hope the idea’s of use to somebody else looking to achieve this kind of thing, too.

Footnotes

¹ Where JavaScript is absolutely necessary, I (a) host it on the same domain, for performance and privacy-respecting reasons, and (b) try to provide a functional alternative that doesn’t require JavaScript, ideally seamlessly.

² In practice, the lightbox images get lazy-loaded, so there can be a short round trip to fetch the image the first time. But after that, it’s instantaneous.

³ The pair – post image and lightbox image – work basically the same way as footnotes, like this one.

⁴ I already do this with links in general using the excellent instant.page.

Higher/Lower Datepicker

I’ve written before about the trend in web development to take what the web gives you for free, throw it away, and then rebuild it in Javascript. The rebuilt version is invariably worse in many ways – less-accessible, higher-bandwidth, reduced features, more fragile, etc. – but it’s more convenient for developers. Personally, I try not to value developer convenience at the expense of user experience, but that’s an unpopular opinion lately.

Screenshot showing a hovered hyperlink to "Digital Forest" on a list of green hosting providers in France. — Here’s a perfect example I bumped into earlier this week, courtesy of The Green Web Foundation. This *looks* like a hyperlink… but if you open it in a new tab/window, you see a page (not even a 404 page!) with the text “It looks like nothing was found at this location.”

In the site shown in the screenshot above, the developer took something the web gave them for free (a hyperlink), threw it away (by making it a link-to-nowhere), and rebuilt its functionality with Javascript (without thinking about the fact that you can do more with hyperlinks than click them: you can click-and-drag them, you can bookmark them, you can share them, you can open them in new tabs etc.). Ugh.

Date pickers

Particularly egregious are the date pickers. Entering your date of birth on a web form ought to be pretty simple: gov.uk pretty much solved it based on user testing they did in 2013.

Here’s the short of it:

Something you can clearly type a numeric day, month and year into is best.
Three dropdowns are slightly worse, but at least if you use native HTML <select> elements keyboard users can still “type” to filter.
Everything else – including things that look like <select>s but are really funky React <div>s, is pretty terrible.

Calendar datepicker with slider-based timepicker and no text-based fallback. — Calendars can be great for choosing your holiday date range. But pressing “Prev” ~480 times to get to my month of birth isn’t good. Also: what’s with the time “sliders”? (Yes, I know I’ve implemented these myself, in the past, and I’m sorry.)

My fellow Automattician Enfys recently tweeted:

People designing webforms that require me to enter my birthdate:

I am begging you: just let me type it in.

Typing it in is 6-8 quick keystrokes. Trying to navigate a little calendar or spinny wheels back to the 1970s is time-consuming, frustrating and unnecessary.

They’re right. Those little spinny wheels are a pain in the arse if you’ve got to use one to go back 40+ years.

Date "spinner" currently showing 20 December 2012. — These things are *okay* (I guess) on mobile/touchscreen devices, though I’d still prefer the *option* to type in my date of birth. But send one to my desktop and I will curse your name.

Can we do worse?

If there’s one thing we learned from making the worst volume control in the world, the other year, it’s that you can always find a worse UI metaphor. So here’s my attempt at making a date of birth field that’s somehow even worse than “date spinners”:

My datepicker implements a game of “higher/lower”. Starting from bounds specified in the HTML code and a random guess, it narrows-down its guess as to what your date of birth is as you click the up or down buttons. If you make a mistake you can start over with the restart button.

Amazingly, this isn’t actually the worst datepicker into which I’ve entered my date of birth! It’s cognitively challenging compared to most, but it’s relatively fast at narrowing down the options from any starting point. Plus, I accidentally implemented some good features that make it better than plenty of the datepickers out there:

It’s progressively enhanced – if the Javascript doesn’t load, you can still enter your date of birth in a sensible way.
Because it leans on a <input type="date"> control, your browser takes responsibility for localising, so if you’re from one of those weird countries that prefers mm-dd-yyyy then that’s what you should see.
It’s moderately accessible, all things considered, and it could easily be improved further.

It turns out that even when you try to make something terrible, so long as you’re building on top of the solid principles the web gives you for free, you can accidentally end up with something not-so-bad. Who knew?

<blink> and <marquee>

I was chatting with a fellow web developer recently and made a joke about the HTML <blink> and <marquee> tags, only to discover that he had no idea what I was talking about. They’re a part of web history that’s fallen off the radar and younger developers are unlikely to have ever come across them. But for a little while, back in the 90s, they were a big deal.

Macromedia Dreamweaver 3 code editor window showing a <h2> heading wrapped in <marquee> and <blink> tags, for emphasis. — Even Macromedia Dreamweaver, which embodied the essence of 1990s web design, seemed to treat wrapping `<blink>` in `<marquee>` as an antipattern.

Invention of the <blink> element is often credited to Lou Montulli, who wrote pioneering web browser Lynx before being joining Netscape in 1994. He insists that he didn’t write any of the code that eventually became the first implementation of <blink>. Instead, he claims: while out at a bar (on the evening he’d first meet his wife!), he pointed out that many of the fancy new stylistic elements the other Netscape engineers were proposing wouldn’t work in Lynx, which is a text-only browser. The fanciest conceivable effect that would work across both browsers would be making the text flash on and off, he joked. Then another engineer – who he doesn’t identify – pulled a late night hack session and added it.

And so it was that when Netscape Navigator 2.0 was released in 1995 it added support for the <blink> tag. Also animated GIFs and the first inklings of JavaScript, which collectively would go on to define the “personal website” experience for years to come. Here’s how you’d use it:

<BLINK>This is my blinking text!</BLINK>

With no attributes, it was clear from the outset that this tag was supposed to be a joke. By the time HTML4 was published as a a recommendation two years later, it was documented as being a joke. But the Web of the late 1990s saw it used a lot. If you wanted somebody to notice the “latest updates” section on your personal home page, you’d wrap a <blink> tag around the title (or, if you were a sadist, the entire block).

Cameron's World website, screenshot, showing GIFS and bright pallette — If you missed this particular chapter of the Web’s history, you can simulate it at Cameron’s World.

In the same year as Netscape Navigator 2.0 was released, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 2.0. At this point, Internet Explorer was still very-much playing catch-up with the features the Netscape team had implemented, but clearly some senior Microsoft engineer took a look at the <blink> tag, refused to play along with the joke, but had an innovation of their own: the <marquee> tag! It had a whole suite of attributes to control the scroll direction, speed, and whether it looped or bounced backwards and forwards. While <blink> encouraged disgusting and inaccessible design as a joke, <marquee> did it on purpose.

<MARQUEE>Oh my god this still works in most modern browsers!</MARQUEE>

Oh my god this still works in most modern browsers!

If you see the text above moving… you’re looking at a living fossil in browser history.

But here’s the interesting bit: for a while in the late 1990s, it became a somewhat common practice to wrap content that you wanted to emphasise with animation in both a <blink> and a <marquee> tag. That way, the Netscape users would see it flash, the IE users would see it scroll or bounce. Like this:

<MARQUEE><BLINK>This is my really important message!</BLINK></MARQUEE>

Internet Explorer 5 showing a marquee effect. — Wrap a `<blink>` inside a `<marquee>` and IE users will see the marquee. Delightful.

The web has always been built on Postel’s Law: a web browser should assume that it won’t understand everything it reads, but it should provide a best-effort rendering for the benefit of its user anyway. Ever wondered why the modern <video> element is a block rather than a self-closing tag? It’s so you can embed within it code that an earlier browser – one that doesn’t understand <video> – can read (a browser’s default state when seeing a new element it doesn’t understand is to ignore it and carry on). So embedding a <blink> in a <marquee> gave you the best of both worlds, right? (welll…)

Netscape Navigator 5 showing a blink effect. — Wrap a `<blink>` inside a `<marquee>` and Netscape users will see the blink. Joy.

Better yet, you were safe in the knowledge that anybody using a browser that didn’t understand either of these tags could still read your content. Used properly, the web is about progressive enhancement. Implement for everybody, enhance for those who support the shiny features. JavaScript and CSS can be applied with the same rules, and doing so pays dividends in maintainability and accessibility (though, sadly, that doesn’t stop people writing sites that needlessly require these technologies).

Opera 5 showing no blinking nor marquee text. — Personally, I was a (paying! – back when people used to pay for web browsers!) Opera user so I mostly saw neither `<blink>` nor `<marquee>` elements. I don’t feel like I missed out.

I remember, though, the first time I tried Netscape 7, in 2002. Netscape 7 and its close descendent are, as far as I can tell, the only web browsers to support both <blink> and <marquee>. Even then, it was picky about the order in which they were presented and the elements wrapped-within them. But support was good enough that some people’s personal web pages suddenly began to exhibit the most ugly effect imaginable: the combination of both scrolling and flashing text.

Netscape 7 showing text that both blinks and marquee-scrolls. — If Netscape 7’s UI didn’t already make your eyes bleed (I’ve toned it down here by installing the “classic skin”), its simultaneous rendering of `<blink>` and `<marquee>` would.

The <blink> tag is very-definitely dead (hurrah!), but you can bring it back with pure CSS if you must. <marquee>, amazingly, still survives, not only in polyfills but natively, as you might be able to see above. However, if you’re in any doubt as to whether or not you should use it: you shouldn’t. If you’re looking for digital nostalgia, there’s a whole rabbit hole to dive down, but you don’t need to inflict <marquee> on the rest of us.

Loading CSS Asynchronously Without JS Dependency

tl;dr? skip to the proof-of-concept/demo of lazy-loading CSS where possible while still loading it “conventionally” to users without Javascript

In a “daily tip” a couple of days ago, the excellent Chris Ferdinandi recommended an approach to loading CSS asynchronously based on a refined technique by Scott Jehl. The short of it is that you load your stylesheets like this:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="/path/to/my.css" media="print" onload="this.media='all'">

You see what that’s doing? It’s loading the stylesheet for the print medium, but then when the document finishes loading it’s switching the media type from “print” to “all”. Because it didn’t apply to begin with the stylesheet isn’t render-blocking. You can use this to delay secondary styles so the page essentials can load at full speed.

This website's Lighthouse score showing a Total Blocking Time of 0ms. — Reducing blocking times, like I have on *this* page, is one of many steps in optimising perceived page performance.

I don’t like this approach. I mean: I love the elegance… I just don’t like the implications.

Why I don’t like lazy-loading CSS using Javascript

Using Javascript to load CSS, in order to prevent that CSS blocking rendering, feels to me like it conceptually breaks the Web. It certainly violates the expectations of progressive enhancement, because it introduces a level of fault-intolerance that I consider (mostly) unacceptable.

CSS and Javascript are independent of one another. A well-designed progressively-enhanced page should function with HTML only, HTML-and-CSS only, HTML-and-JS only, or all three.CSS adds style, and JS adds behvaiour to a page; and when you insist that the user agent uses Javascript in order to load stylistic elements, you violate the separation of these technologies (I’m looking at you, the majority of heavyweight front-end frameworks!).

If you’re thinking that the only people affected are nerds like me who browse with Javascript wholly or partially disabled, you’re wrong: gov.uk research shows that around 1% of your visitors have Javascript fail for some reason or another: because it’s disabled (whether for preference, privacy, compatibility with accessibility technologies, or whaterver), blocked, firewalled, or they’re using a browser that you didn’t expect.

Can we lazy-load CSS in a way that doesn’t depend on Javascript? (spoiler: yes)

Chris’s daily tip got me thinking: could there exist a way to load CSS in a non-render-blocking way but which degraded gracefully in the event that Javascript was unavailable? I.e. if Javascript is working, lazy-load CSS, otherwise: load conventionally as a fallback. It turns out, there is!

In principle, it’s this:

Link your stylesheet from within a <noscript> block, thereby only exposing it where Javascript is disabled. Give it a custom attribute to make it easy to find later, e.g. <noscript lazyload> (if you’re a standards purist, you might prefer to use a data- attribute).
Have your Javascript extract the contents of these <noscript> blocks and reinject them. In modern browsers, this is as simple as e.g. [...document.querySelectorAll('noscript[lazyload]')].forEach(ns=>ns.outerHTML=ns.innerHTML).

If you need support for Internet Explorer, you need a little more work, because Internet Explorer doesn’t expose<noscript> blocks to the DOM in a helpful way. There are a variety of possible workarounds; I’ve implemented one but not put too much thought into it because I rarely have to think about Internet Explorer these days.

In any case, I’ve implemented a proof of concept/demonstration if you’d like to see it in action: just take a look and view source (or read the page) for details. Or view the source alone via this gist.

Lazy-loading CSS using my approach provides most of the benefits of other approaches… but works properly in environments without Javascript too.

Update: Chris Ferdinandi’s refined this into an even cleaner approach that takes the best of both worlds.

JavaScript and the mobile-only user

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

It’s 2019. No one disables JavaScript.

Actually (cue Adam Conover!)… some people do. They represent about a tenth of a percent (0.1%) of the people who don’t get your JavaScript file, though, and they’ve chosen to browse the web that way, so let’s ignore them for a second.

I see this argument—that one one disables JS in 2019—as an argument for not bothering to care or worry about progressive enhancement. But it’s wrong!

There are plenty of other reasons why people don’t get your JavaScript.

Your CDN fails

An ad blocker or filewall got a little overly aggressive

A JS error (either in your code or something third-party) stops all of the JS from rendering

The file times out because it’s too big or too slow to parse

Today, I want to focus on that last one.

…

Go Make Things

So very much this. Web bloat is becoming a huge issue (incidentally, I was pleased to see that DanQ.me’s homepage Web Bloat Score is in the region of a nice, clean 0.1, but I’m confident that there’s still plenty I could do to improve it); it’s easy to see how developers on their powerful desktops and laptops and with their WiFi-connected high-end smartphones might overlook people on older, less-powerful devices and slower, lower-bandwidth connections.

I’m not saying that Javascript is bad: it’s not! I’m saying that where functionality exists in simpler, more-lightweight technologies (like good old-fashioned links and regular <input> elements, both of which are routinely reimplemented in the front-end), then those technologies should be used in the first instance. If you want to build on top of that with Javascript, that’s great! But starting from the ground floor when building for the web is the surest way to support the widest diversity of potential users (and it makes it easier to achieve your accessibility goals, too!)

Non Stop Hammer Ti.me

You know how sometimes I make a thing and, in hindsight, it doesn’t make much sense? And at best, all it can be said to do is to make the Internet more fun and weird?

I give you: NonStopHammerTi.me.

Things that make it awesome:

Well, the obvious.
Vanilla Javascript.
CSS animations timed to every-other-beat.
Using an SVG stroke-dasharray as a progress bar.
Progressively-enhanced; in the worst case you just get to download the audio.
PWA-enhanced; install it to your mobile!
Open source!
Decentralised (available via the peer-web at dat://nonstophammerti.me/ / dat://0a4a8a..00/)
Accessible to screen readers, keyboard navigators, partially-sighted users, just about anybody.
Compatible with digital signage at my workplace…

That is all.

How many people are missing out on JavaScript enhancement?

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

few weeks back, we were chatting about the architecture of the Individual Electoral Registration web service. We started discussing the pros and cons of an approach that would provide a significantly different interaction for any people not running JavaScript.

“What proportion of people is that?” an inquisitive mind asked.

Silence.

We didn’t really have any idea how many people are experiencing UK government web services without the enhancement of JavaScript. That’s a bad thing for a team that is evangelical about data driven design, so I thought we should find out.

The answer is:

1.1% of people aren’t getting Javascript enhancements (1 in 93)

…

Peter Herlihy (Government Digital Service)

This article by the GDS is six years old now, but its fundamental point is still as valid as ever: a small proportion (probably in the region of 1%) of your users won’t experience some or all of the whizzy Javascript stuff on your website, and it’s not because they’re a power user who disables Javascript.

There are so many reasons a user won’t run your Javascript, including:

They’re using a browser that doesn’t support Javascript (or doesn’t support the version you’re using)
They, or somebody they share their device with, has consciously turned-off Javascript either wholesale or selectively, in order to for example save bandwidth, improve speed, reinforce security, or improve compatibility with their accessibility technologies
They’re viewing a locally-saved, backed-up, or archived version of your page (possibly in the far future long after your site is gone)
Their virus scanner mis-classified your Javascript as potentially malicious
One or more of your Javascript files contains a bug which, on their environment, stops execution
One or more of your Javascript files failed to be delivered, for example owing to routing errors, CDN downtime, censorship, cryptographic handshake failures, shaky connections, cross-domain issues, stale caches…
On their device, your Javascript takes too long to execute or consumes too many resources and is stopped by the browser

Fundamentally, you can’t depend on Javascript and so you shouldn’t depend on it being there, 100% of the time, when it’s possible not to. Luckily, the Web already gives us all the tools we need to develop the vast, vast majority of web content in a way that doesn’t depend on Javascript. Back in the 1990s we just called it “web development”, but nowadays Javascript (and other optional/under-continuous-development web technologies like your favourite so-very-2019 CSS hack) is so ubiquitous that we give it the special name “progressive enhancement” and make a whole practice out of it.

The Web was designed for forwards- and backwards-compatibility. When you break that, you betray your users and you make work for yourself.

(by the way: I know I plugged the unpoly framework already, the other day, but you should really give it a look if you’re just learning how to pull off progressive enhancement)

I Used The Web For A Day On Internet Explorer 8

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

…

Who In The World Uses IE8?

Before we start; a disclaimer: I am not about to tell you that you need to start supporting IE8.

There’s every reason to not support IE8. Microsoft officially stopped supporting IE8, IE9 and IE10 over three years ago, and the Microsoft executives are even telling you to stop using Internet Explorer 11.

But as much as we developers hope for it to go away, it just. Won’t. Die. IE8 continues to show up in browser stats, especially outside of the bubble of the Western world.

…

Chris Ashton (Smashing Magazine)

Sure, you aren’t developing for IE8 any more. But you should be developing with progressive enhancement, and if you do that right, you get all kinds of compatibility, accessibility, future- and past-proofing built-in. This isn’t just about supporting the (many) African countries where IE8 usage remains at over 1%… it’s about supporting the Web’s openness and archivibility and following best-practice in your support of new technologies.

We are actively destroying the web

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

One of the central themes of my talk on The Lean Web is that we as developers repeatedly take all of the great things the web and browsers give us out-of-the-box, break them, and then re-implement them poorly with JavaScript.

This point smacked me in the face hard a few weeks ago after WebAIM released their survey of the top million websites.

As Ethan Marcotte noted in his article on the survey:

Pages containing popular JavaScript frameworks were more likely to have accessibility errors than those that didn’t use those frameworks.

…

JavaScript routing has always perplexed me.

You take something the browser just gives you for free, break it with JavaScript, then reimplement it with more JavaScript, often poorly. You have to account for on-page clicks, on-site clicks, off-site clicks, forward and back button usage, and so on.

…

Chris Ferdinandi (Go Make Things)

JavaScript routing has always perplexed me, too. Back when SPA-centric front-end frameworks started taking off I thought that there must be something wrong with me, as a developer. Why was I unable to see why this “new hotness” was so popular, so immediately ubiquitous? I taught myself a couple of different frameworks in the hope that in learning to use them in anger I’d “click” and understand why this approach to routing made any sense, but I still couldn’t get it.

That’s when I remembered, later than I ought to have, that just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.#

Front-end routing isn’t necessarily poisonous. By building on-top of what you already have in a progressive-enhancement kind-of way (like unpoly does for example!) you can potentially provide some minor performance or look-and-feel improvements to people in ideal circumstances (right browser(s), right compatibility, no bugs, no blocks, no accessibility needs, no “power users” who like to open-in-new-tab and the like, speedy connection, etc.) without damaging the fundamentals of what makes your web application work… but you’ve got to appreciate that doing this is going to be more work. For some applications, that’s worthwhile.

But when you do it at the expense of the underlying fundamentals… when you say “we’re moving everything to the front-end so we’re not going to bother with real URLs any more”… that’s when you break the web. And in doing so, you break a lot of other things too:

You break your user experience for people who don’t fit into your perfect vision of what your users look like in terms of technology, connection, or able-bodiedness
You break the sustainability and archivability of your site, making it into another piece of trash that’ll be lost to the coming digital dark age
You break the usability of the site by anything but your narrow view of what’s right
You break a lot of the technology that’s made the web as great as it is already: caching, manipulatable URLs, widespread compatibility… and many other things become harder when you have to re-invent the wheel to get basic features like preloading, sharability/bookmarking, page saving, the back button, stateful refreshes, SEO, hyperlinks…

Modern CSS on DanQ.me

The current iteration of my blog diverges from an architectural principle common to most of previous versions of the last 20 years. While each previous change in design and layout was intended to provide a single monolithic upgrade, this version tries to provide me with a platform for continuous ongoing experimentation and change.

Debug console on DanQ.me showing Dan's head and a speech bubble. — Earlier this year I added experimental console art, for example. Click through for more details.

I’ve been trying to make better use of my blog as a vehicle for experimenting with web technologies, as I used to with personal sites back in the 1990s and early 2000s; to see a vanity site like this one as a living playground rather than something that – like most of the sites I’m paid to work on – something whose design is, for the most part, static for long periods of time.

"Blog" dropdown menu on DanQ.me. — The “popular” flag and associated background colour in the “Blog” top-level menu became permanent after a period of A/B testing. Thanks, unwitting testers!

Among the things I’ve added prior to the initial launch of this version of the design are gracefully-degrading grids, reduced-motion support, and dark-mode support – three CSS features of increasing levels of “cutting edge”-ness but each of which is capable of being implemented in a way that does not break the site’s compatibility. This site’s pages are readable using (simulations of) ancient rendering engines or even in completely text-based browsers, and that’s just great.

Here’s how I’ve implemented those three features:

Gracefully-degrading grids

The grid of recent notes, shares, checkins and videos on my homepage is powered by the display: grid; CSS directive. The number of columns varies by screen width from six on the widest screens down to three or just one on increasingly small screens. Crucially, grid-auto-flow: dense; is used to ensure an even left-to-right filling of the available space even if one of the “larger” blocks (with grid-column: span 2; grid-row: span 2;) is forced for space reasons to run onto the next line. This means that content might occasionally be displayed in a different order from that in which it is written in the HTML (which is reverse order of publication), but in exchange the items are flush with both sides.

Not all web browsers support display: grid; and while that’s often only one of design and not of readability because these browsers will fall back to usually-very-safe default display modes like block and inline, as appropriate, sometimes there are bigger problems. In Internet Explorer 11, for example, I found (with thanks to @_ignatg) a problem with my directives specifying the size of these cells (which are actually <li> elements because, well, semantics matter). Because it understood the directives that ought to impact the sizing of the list items but not the one that redeclared its display type, IE made… a bit of a mess of things…

Do websites need to look the same in every browser? No. But the content should be readable regardless, and here my CSS was rendering my content unreadable. Given that Internet Explorer users represent a little under 0.1% of visitors to my site I don’t feel the need to hack it to have the same look-and-feel: I just need it to have the same content readability. CSS Feature Queries to the rescue!

CSS Feature Queries – the @supports selector – make it possible to apply parts of your stylesheet if and only if the browser supports specific CSS features, for example grids. Better yet, using it in a positive manner (i.e. “apply these rules only if the browser supports this feature”) is progressive enhancement, because browsers that don’t understand the @supports selector act in the same way as those that understand it but don’t support the specified feature. Fencing off the relevant parts of my stylesheet in a @supports (display: grid) { ... } block instructed IE to fall back to displaying that content as a boring old list: exactly what I needed.

Internet Explorer's view of the "grid" on the DanQ.me homepage. — It isn’t pretty, but it’s pretty usable!

Reduced-motion support

I like to put a few “fun” features into each design for my blog, and while it’s nowhere near as quirky as having my head play peek-a-boo when you hover your cursor over it, the current header’s animations are in the same ballpark: hover over or click on some of the items in the header menu to see for yourself..

Main menu with "Dan Q" title in it's "bounced" position. — I’m most-pleased with the playful “bounce” of the letter Q when you hover over my name.

These kinds of animations are fun, but they can also be problematic. People with inner ear disorders (as well as people who’re just trying to maximise the battery life on their portable devices!) might prefer not to see them, and web designers ought to respect that choice where possible. Luckily, there’s an emerging standard to acknowledge that: prefers-reduced-motion. Alongside its cousins inverted-colors, prefers-reduced-transparency, prefers-contrast and prefers-color-scheme (see below for that last one!), these new CSS tools allow developers to optimise based on the accessibility features activated by the user within their operating system.

Motion-reducing controls in Windows 10 and MacOS X. — In Windows you turn *off* animations while in MacOS you turn on not-having animations, but the principle’s the same.

If you’ve tweaked your accessibility settings to reduce the amount of animation your operating system shows you, this website will respect that choice as well by not animating the contents of the title, menu, or the homepage “tiles” any more than is absolutely necessary… so long as you’re using a supported browser, which right now means Safari or Firefox (or the “next” version of Chrome). Making the change itself is pretty simple: I just added a @media screen and (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) { ... } block to disable or otherwise cut-down on the relevant animations.

Dark-mode support

Similarly, operating systems are beginning to support “dark mode”, designed for people trying to avoid eyestrain when using their computer at night. It’s possible for your browser to respect this and try to “fix” web pages for you, of course, but it’s better still if the developer of those pages has anticipated your need and designed them to acknowledge your choice for you. It’s only supported in Firefox and Safari so far and only on recent versions of Windows and MacOS, but it’s a start and a helpful touch for those nocturnal websurfers out there.

Enabling Dark Mode on Windows 10 and MacOS X — Come to the dark side, Luke. Or just get f.lux, I suppose.

It’s pretty simple to implement. In my case, I just stacked some overrides into a @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) { ... } block, inverting the background and primary foreground colours, softening the contrast, removing a few “bright” borders, and darkening rather than lightening background images used on homepage tiles. And again, it’s an example of progressive enhancement: the (majority!) of users whose operating systems and/or browsers don’t yet support this feature won’t be impacted by its inclusion in my stylesheet, but those who can make use of it can appreciate its benefits.

This isn’t the end of the story of CSS experimentation on my blog, but it’s a part of the it that I hope you’ve enjoyed.

What Does AJAX Even Stand For?

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

…Jesse James Garett of Adaptive Path finally gave this use of Javascript a name. He called it Asynchronous Javascript and XML (thankfully shortened to Ajax). Ajax wasn’t a single method or technology, but a group of principles based on the work being done at Google that described how to handle JavaScript in more demanding web applications. The short version is actually fairly simple. Use XMLHttpRequest to make request to the server, take the XML data returned, and lay it out on the page using JavaScript and semantic HTML.

Ajax took off after that. It underpins major parts of modern web development, and has spawned a number of frameworks and methodologies. The technology itself has been swapped out over time. XML was replaced by JSON, and XMLHttpRequest by fetch. That doesn’t matter though. Ajax showed a lot of developers that the web wasn’t just about documents. The web could be used to build applications. That might seem like a small notion, but trust me when I say, it was momentous.

Jay Hoffmann (The History of The Web)

The History of The Web is great, and you should read it, but this piece is particularly interesting. Ajax and its spiritual successors laid the groundwork for rich Internet applications, shell apps, and the real-time Web, but they also paved the way for a handful of the inevitable practices that went alongside: Javascript-required websites, API-driven web and mobile applications with virtually no HTML content whatsoever… and these things have begun to become problematic for the health of the Web as a whole.

I love Ajax, but it absolutely must be employed as progressive enhancement where possible.

WorldWideWeb, 30 years on

This month, a collection of some of my favourite geeks got invited to CERN in Geneva to participate in a week-long hackathon with the aim of reimplementing WorldWideWeb – the first web browser, circa 1990-1994 – as a web application. I’m super jealous, but I’m also really pleased with what they managed to produce.

DanQ.me as displayed by the reimagined WorldWideWeb browser circa 1990 — With the exception of a few character entity quirks, this site remains perfectly usable in the simulated WorldWideWeb browser. Clearly I wasn’t the only person to try this vanity-check…

This represents a huge leap forward from their last similar project, which aimed to recreate the line mode browser: the first web browser that didn’t require a NeXT computer to run it and so a leap forward in mainstream appeal. In some ways, you might expect reimplementing WorldWideWeb to be easier, because its functionality is more-similar that of a modern browser, but there were doubtless some challenges too: this early browser predated the concept of the DOM and so there are distinct processing differences that must be considered to get a truly authentic experience.

Geeks hacking on WorldWideWeb reborn — It’s just like any other hackathon, if you ignore the enormous particle collider underneath it.

Among their outputs, the team also produced a cool timeline of the Web, which – thanks to some careful authorship – is as legible in WorldWideWeb as it is in a modern browser (if, admittedly, a little less pretty).

WorldWideWeb screenshot by Sir Tim Berners-Lee — When Sir Tim took this screenshot, he could never have predicted the way the Web would change, technically, over the next 25-30 years. But I’m almost more-interested in how it’s stayed the same.

In an age of increasing Single Page Applications and API-driven sites and “apps”, it’s nice to be reminded that if you develop right for the Web, your content will be visible (sort-of; I’m aware that there are some liberties taken here in memory and processing limitations, protocols and negotiation) on machines 30 years old, and that gives me hope that adherence to the same solid standards gives us a chance of writing pages today that look just as good in 30 years to come. Compare that to a proprietary technology like Flash whose heyday 15 years ago is overshadowed by its imminent death (not to mention Java applets or ActiveX <shudders>), iOS apps which stopped working when the operating system went 64-bit, and websites which only work in specific browsers (traditionally Internet Explorer, though as I’ve complained before we’re getting more and more Chrome-only sites).

The Web is a success story in open standards, natural and by-design progressive enhancement, and the future-proof archivability of human-readable code. Long live the Web.

Update 24 February 2019: After I submitted news of the browser to MetaFilter, I (and others) spotted a bug. So I came up with a fix…

When to use CSS vs. JavaScript

This is a repost promoting content originally published elsewhere. See more things Dan's reposted.

CSS before JS #

My general rule of thumb is…

If something I want to do with JavaScript can be done with CSS instead, use CSS.

CSS parses and renders faster.

For things like animations, it more easily hooks into the browser’s refresh rate cycle to provide silky smooth animations (this can be done in JS, too, but CSS just makes it so damn easy).

And it fails gracefully.

A JavaScript error can bring all of the JS on a page to screeching halt. Mistype a CSS property or miss a semicolon? The browser just skips the property and moves on. Use an unsupported feature? Same thing.

…

Chris Ferdinandi

This exactly! If you want progressive enhancement (and you should), performance, and the cleanest separation of behaviour and presentation, the pages you deliver to your users (regardless of what technology you use on your server) should consist of:

HTML, written in such a way that that they’re complete and comprehensible alone – from an information science perspective, your pages shouldn’t “need” any more than this (although it’s okay if they’re pretty ugly without any more)
CSS, adding design, theme, look-and-feel to your web page
Javascript, using progressive enhancement to add functionality in-the-browser (e.g. validation on the client-side in addition to the server side validation, for speed and ease of user experience) and, where absolutely necessary, to add functionality not possible any other way (e.g. if you’re looking to tap into the geolocation API, you’re going to need Javascript… but it’s still desirable to provide as much of the experience as possible without)

Developers failing to follow this principle is making the Web more fragile and harder to archive. It’s not hard to do things “right”: we just need to make sure that developers learn what “right” is and why it’s important.

Incidentally, I just some enhancements to the header of this site, including some CSS animations on the logo and menu (none of them necessary, but all useful) and some Javascript to help ensure that users of touch-capable devices have an easier time. Note that neither Javascript nor CSS are required to use this site; they just add value… just the way the Web ought to be (where possible).

<link rel="alternate">s at the top

Post list indentation

CSS lightboxes add a step to images

gopher: and finger: links work perfectly!

You can’t react to anything

Comment form honeypot

Overall, it’s pretty good

Footnotes

The Markup

The Style

Summary

Footnotes

Date pickers

Can we do worse?

Why I don’t like lazy-loading CSS using Javascript

Can we lazy-load CSS in a way that doesn’t depend on Javascript? (spoiler: yes)

Who In The World Uses IE8?

Gracefully-degrading grids

Reduced-motion support

Dark-mode support

CSS before JS #

`<link rel="alternate">`s at the top