I'm absolutely horrified at what the "modern web" has become. More complexity, more bugs, more barriers to entry for anyone else wanting to write their own browser and have it be usable for most sites. Google seems determined to squeeze everyone else out with this feature-churn.
If websites/web apps are adopting these features, maybe it's because they're useful? You're free to use a 10 years old browser and keep reading document-like websites. In the meantime I'll be using all the goodness the web can bring today, hoping it will end up fully replacing the very costly, heavy, intrusive native apps, that only work on the system they've been built for.
The problem is exactly that attitude turning what used to be highly accessible and interactive sites into elephantine "web apps" that need the latest and most user-hostile version of $BIG_BROWSER (which doesn't run on older OS and thus hardware too) to do what was perfectly possible with technology of a decade ago, or even less functionality.
I wonder what is more responsible for that; the fact that people don't care about history, or that corporate propaganda has pushed them away from realising it.
If websites are turned into web apps with more features, it's probably because it's bringing in money, in the form of users or consumers, don't you think? If consumers tended to like simple "interactive" websites like we used to have 10 years ago, companies would probably not bother building modern web apps. But that's not the case. Web apps, in general, do provide a way better experience than simple websites, and users do like them. There is no propaganda at work here, just simple market mechanisms.
If anyone is to blame for showing that a better user experience is possible, it's probably those who pushed for quality UI in native apps, that web apps are trying to match.
No, users often have next to no choice in what they are forced to use, or don't know better. It's just that the industry has been saturated with too many web developers who have nothing else to do, and companies like Google trying to increase their browser monopoly --- which ties in with attempting to make sure that users "don't know better".
Talk to people outside of the tech bubble. They hate what's happening, and also feel powerless to stop it.
The problem is exactly that attitude turning what used to be highly accessible and interactive apps into elephantine "native apps" that need the latest and most user-hostile version of $BIG_OS (which doesn't run on older hardware) to do what was perfectly possible with technology of a decade ago, or even less functionality.
I wonder what is more responsible for that; the fact that people don't care about history, or that corporate propaganda has pushed them away from realising it.
The web is way more free and open than operating systems. And if you want to build a website with only HTML and vanilla JS nothing is stopping you. There are websites made in the 90s that still work today. I much prefer the web, web apps and PWAs to their native counterparts.
The problem is that there are so many ways to do things, and every website uses a different subset.
Need to layout your elements? Great, that's what flex is for. I mean grid. I mean float. I mean the position attribute. I mean tables. I mean the margin attribution.
I'm really looking forward to a better integration of Webassembly. Then we can each pick our own libraries for layout/colors/video etc., and writing a browser will be more like writing a VM than writing huge entire ecosystems.
