Can't stand Web 2.slow

[kranky]

Ever since this Web 2.0 thing got popular I have been frustrated with how those sites operate. Now it could be just me, but I use 4 different computers on a regular basis between work and home and they all behave the same way.

Browser says "Done" yet you see a blank page for another 10 seconds. Can't scroll down immediately when the page appears. Click in a text field and instead of a cursor you get an hourglass, because it's not going to let you type - it's going to pop up a window you have to click on in order to fill in the entry (particularly common with date fields).

Twenty minutes to book a simple trip through AmEx travel. Friggin' ridiculous. Next time I'm just going to call and let their person do the work. And it's not just their site, I see similar thing on other Web 2.0 sites.

 

[nonameo]

web 2.0 seems like a gimmick to me.

 

[phreaqe]

i agree. we use a custom web application at work. version 1 which we still use was basically plain html. it was butt ugly, looked like it was designed using visual studio(which i think it was) but it was quick. it had no fancy things animations and whatnot going on. it just worked. our new version uses ajax and fancy popup windows and it is slower then molasses in janurary. it is painful to use. it looks alot prettier but it is just not worth it in the end.

 

[Anubis]

flash should be banned IMO

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Anubis
flash should be banned IMO

Flash != web 2.0.

 

[MrChad]

It's not really a problem with "Web 2.0" technologies (JavaScript, AJAX, etc.) but with the misapplication of those technologies. The same holds true with Flash. Done correctly, "Web 2.0" can make applications work much, much better (look at how responsive and intuitive GMail's interface is for example). But there are lots of sites out there that use AJAX for the sake of AJAX, and in general those sites fail miserably.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Anubis
flash should be banned IMO

Flash != web 2.0.

and? it should still be banned

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Anubis
flash should be banned IMO

Flash != web 2.0.

and? it should still be banned

Then start another thread titled "Can't stand Flash"?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Anubis
flash should be banned IMO

Flash != web 2.0.

and? it should still be banned

Again, Flash is awesome when used properly. Think of how useful and user-friendly it's made YouTube.

Using Flash for the sake of Flash is where things get ugly.

 

[edro]

Web 2.0 example URLs please.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: MrChad
It's not really a problem with "Web 2.0" technologies (JavaScript, AJAX, etc.) but with the misapplication of those technologies. The same holds true with Flash. Done correctly, "Web 2.0" can make applications work much, much better (look at how responsive and intuitive GMail's interface is for example). But there are lots of sites out there that use AJAX for the sake of AJAX, and in general those sites fail miserably.

And I can tell you exactly why.

[Enter Pointy-Haired Boss]
I just read about this AJAX stuff. Our competitors use AJAX. I want our front page using AJAX by the end of next week!

 

[yllus]

Our CRM software used to be pretty Web 1.0ish. They recently updated the e-mail module to use AJAX and it's really slowed everything down. Sometimes newer isn't better.

 

[racolvin]

The ones I can't stand are the sites that are dynamic and database driven that take forever to load for what is basically an online catalog - static content that would render MUCH faster and be far quicker to deploy than this god-awful proprietary thing they're currently developing. There's nothing wrong with static pages if the content isn't going to change.

 

[zebano]

Originally posted by: yllus
Our CRM software used to be pretty Web 1.0ish. They recently updated the e-mail module to use AJAX and it's really slowed everything down. Sometimes newer isn't better.

Have you looked at the source? That could very well be the programmers/administrators fault. Stupid decisions abound everywhere. In general, I like the added responsiveness of "web 2.0" apps, but I think it's a dumb gimmick for what is essentially DHTML.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Web 2.0 is not to be blamed for slow websites of this era. Dynamic, animated, movable content is just as slow as it used to be but it can be just as fast as we want it to be. The web standards that we use today are much faster when done correctly. There are issues when current Web Standards are applied half-assed. For example, instead of small pages of JQuery, a plug-in with tons of features and functions that aren't used on the page is injected and pointlessly applied to the site. Or, certain code is prioritized incorrectly and certain elements have to wait on other slower elements to be processed before they can run, which leads in a big back up.

Don't think that because something is moving or animated that it takes longer to load or is a bigger size. There are many other elements of site compilation that can be blamed for slow sites. Granted, static websites are much faster but when you are working with shopping carts or other continually updated information, a static site just isn't efficient enough from an administrative perspective.

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: zebano

Originally posted by: yllus
Our CRM software used to be pretty Web 1.0ish. They recently updated the e-mail module to use AJAX and it's really slowed everything down. Sometimes newer isn't better.

Have you looked at the source? That could very well be the programmers/administrators fault. Stupid decisions abound everywhere. In general, I like the added responsiveness of "web 2.0" apps, but I think it's a dumb gimmick for what is essentially DHTML.

The name is a gimmick, but a good one imo. It's goal is to grab developers attention and draw a very distinct line between what is to be the standards of today and what was the inefficient, sloppy, and destructive development habits of yesterday. 2.0 symbolizes that its a big important movement into better web design and there should be no looking back.

But to present the new standards and structure to a client or customer as "its cool, we're running web 2.0 now..." is wrong.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: racolvin
The ones I can't stand are the sites that are dynamic and database driven that take forever to load for what is basically an online catalog - static content that would render MUCH faster and be far quicker to deploy than this god-awful proprietary thing they're currently developing. There's nothing wrong with static pages if the content isn't going to change.

There is nothing that makes static content MUCH faster than a dynamic, database driven site.
And content will always change

(If the static version is significantly faster than the dynamic version, somebody is doing something wrong)

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: racolvin
The ones I can't stand are the sites that are dynamic and database driven that take forever to load for what is basically an online catalog - static content that would render MUCH faster and be far quicker to deploy than this god-awful proprietary thing they're currently developing. There's nothing wrong with static pages if the content isn't going to change.

There is nothing that makes static content MUCH faster than a dynamic, database driven site.
And content will always change

(If the static version is significantly faster than the dynamic version, somebody is doing something wrong)

No doubt. I also find it curious that people think they even know which are pulling content from a database and which aren't.

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: edro
Web 2.0 example URLs please.

 

[alkemyst]

the reason so much is crap now is too many bean counters wanted to jump on to a technology with no one on the team really experienced in it.

Most of the pros have been using these technologies already WHEN NEEDED.

Things like AJAX won't necessarily bring more customers/viewers in. People get too caught up in the tech and not the content.

There was some talk at a financial based site to put up a whole campaign advertising they are Web 2.0 / AJAX / etc capable now. It was vetoed by the IS teams.

 

[beer]

Right, because google maps (perhaps the greatest of the web2.0 implementations) sucks so much more than MapQuest of 1999. And, of course, youtube/hulu are so much worse than the .aspx streaming videos and buffering...buffering...buffering... of the 1.0 realm. And facebook is way less user-friendly or interactive than Friendster.

And on...and on...and on....

This thread sucks, is full of misinformation, and most of you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[13Gigatons]

AJAX is great and I'm spoiled by it. I hate old webpages were the whole page needs to reload.