Web pages are big

Web pages load their own user interface code.

There are two immediate consequences of this.

First, each web page must load its own libraries to implement that interface. That slows the loading of web pages. The libraries include more than code; they include stylesheets, fonts, graphics, images and lots of HTML to tie it all together. The code often includes bits to identify the type of device (desktop web browser, mobile web browser, etc.) and functions to load assets when needed ("lazy loading").

I imagine that lots of this code is duplicated from page to page on a web site, and lots of the functions are similar to corresponding functions on other web sites.

Second, each web page has its own user interface, its own "look and feel", to use a term from the 1980s.

Each web page (or perhaps more accurately, each web site) has its own appearance, and its own conventions.

Even the simple convention of "login and logout links are in the top right corner" is not all that common. Of the dozens of web sites that I frequent, many have the "login" and "logout" links in the top right corner, but many others do not. Some have the links close to the top (but not topmost) and close to the right side (but not rightmost). Some web sites bury the "login" and "logout" links in menus. Some web sites put one of the "login" and "logout" links in a menu, but leave the other on the page. Some web sites put the "login" link in the center of their welcome page. And there are other variations.

Variation in the user interface is not evil, but it is inconsistent and it increases the mental effort to visit different web sites. But what do the owners of each web site care? As long as customers come to their web site (and pay them) then the web site is working, according to the company. The fact that it is not consistent with other web sites is not a problem (for them).

Web sites have to load all of their libraries, which increases overall load time for the site. The companies running the web sites probably care little, as the cost is imposed on their customers. The attitude that many companies take is probably (I say "probably" because I have not spoken to companies about this) is that the user (the customer), if dissatisfied with load time, can purchase a faster computer or a faster internet service. The company feels no obligation to improve the experience for the customer.

* * * * *

The situation of individual, differing user interfaces is not unique. In the 1980s, prior to Microsoft Windows, PC software had different user interfaces. The word processors of the time (WordPerfect, WordStar, and even Microsoft Word which had a version for MS-DOS) each had their own "look and feel". The spreadsheets of the time (Lotus 1-2-3, Quattro Pro, and Microsoft Multiplan) each had their own user interfaces, different from each other and different from the user interfaces for word processors. Database packages (dBase, R:Base, Clipper, Condor) each had their own... you get the idea.

Windows offered consistency in the user interface. (It also offered graphics, which is what I think really sold Windows over IBM's OS/2, but that's another topic.) With Windows, programs started the same way, appeared the same way, and provided a set of common functions for opening files, printing, copying and pasting data, and more.

Windows arrived at an opportune time. Computers were fairly common, people (and companies) were using them for serious work, and applications had their various user interfaces. Windows offered consistency across applications, and reduced the effort to learn new applications. A spreadsheet was different from a word processor, but at least someone who was familiar with a word processor under Windows could perform basic operations in a spreadsheet under Windows. People, when learning new applications, could focus on those aspects that were unique to the new applications, not the common operations.

The result was that people learned to use computers more rapidly than in the earlier age of MS-DOS. Windows was sold on the reduction of effort (and therefore costs) in using computers.

* * * * *

Will we see a similar transition for the web? Will someone come along and sell a unified interface for web apps, advertising a lower cost of use? 

In a sense, we have. The apps on smart phones have a more consistent user interface than web sites. This is due to Apple's and Google's efforts, providing libraries for common UI functions and guidelines for application appearance.

But I don't see a unifying transition for web sites in traditional (desktop) browsers. Each company wants its own look and feel, its own brand presence. It doesn't care that web sites take a long time to load, and it probably doesn't care that web sites require a lot of expensive maintenance. Microsoft was able to sell Windows from a position of strength, in a market that had few options. With the web, any company can set up a web site and offer it to the world. There is no convenient choke point, and there is no company strong enough to offer a user interface that could meet the needs of the myriad web sites in existence.

Which means that we are stuck with large web pages, long download times, and different interfaces for different web sites.

Why the ACM is stuck in academe

The Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) is a professional organization. Its main web page claims it is "Advancing Computing as a Science & Profession". In 2000, it recognized that it was focussed exclusively on the academic world, and it also recognized that it had to expand. It has struggled with that expansion for the past two decades.

I recently found an example of its failure.

The flagship publication, "Communications of the ACM", is available on paper or on-line. (So far, so good.) It is available to all comers, with only some articles locked behind a paywall. (Also good.)

But the presentation is bland, almost stifling.

The Communications web site follows a standard, "C-clamp" layout with content and in the center and links and administrative items wrapped around it on the top, left, and bottom. An issue's table of contents has titles (links) with descriptions to the individual articles of the magazine. This is a reasonable arrangement.

Individual articles are presented with header and footer, but without the left-side links. They are not using the C-clamp layout. (Also good.)

The fonts and colors are appealing, and they conform to accessibility standards.

But the problem that shows how ACM fails to "get it" is with the comments. Their articles still have comments (which is good) but very few people comment. So few that many articles have no comments. How does ACM present an article with no comments? How do they convey this to the reader? With a single, mechanical phrase under the article text:

No entries found

That's it. Simply the text "no entries found". It doesn't even have a header describing the section as a comments section. (There is a horizontal rule between the article and this phrase, so the reader has some inkling that "no entries found" is somewhat distinctive from the article. But nothing indicating that the phrase refers to comments.)

Immediately under the title at the top of the page there is a link to comments (labelled "Comments") which is a simple intrapage link to the empty, unlabelled comments section.

I find phrase "no entries found" somewhat embarrassing. In the year 2018, we have the technology to provide text such as "no comments found" or "no comments" or perhaps "be the first to comment on this article". Yet the ACM, the self-proclaimed organization that "delivers resources that advance computing as a science and a profession" cannot bring itself to use any of those phrases. Instead, it allows the underlying CMS driving its web site to bleed out to the user.

A darker thought is that the ACM cares little for comments. It knows that it has to have them, to satisfy some need for "user engagement", but it doesn't really want them. That philosophy is consistent with the academic mindset of "publish and cite", in which citations to earlier publications are valued, but comments from random readers are not.

Yet the rest of the world (that is, people outside of academe) care little for citations and references. They care about opinions and information (ad profits). Comments are an ongoing problem for web sites; few are informative and many are insulting, and many web sites have abandoned comments.

ACM hasn't disabled its comments, but it hasn't encouraged them either. It sits in the middle.

This is why the ACM struggles with its outreach to the non-academic world.

Leaping to mobile may be better than fixing a web site

When looking at the changes needed to make a web site suitable for mobile devices, it may be better to write native apps.

ADP, the large payroll processor, has a web site. It was designed several years ago, and is a bit dated. Not as old as a 1990's style web page with blink tags, but not as modern as it could be. It uses a plug-in to display data enclosed in a PDF. (I find that a bit odd, given that HTML is all about markup and presentation -- but that's not important right now.) The important bit: that plug-in fails on some configurations.

The web site works on my laptop (IE on Windows 7) and on my Apple MacBook (an old version of Safari on an equally old version of MacOS). The web site fails on Chrome on Ubuntu, but works on FireFox on Ubuntu.

The web site works in Windows 8, when I load it in the "classic desktop" version of IE. It fails when I load it in the "Metro" version of IE.

These failures are due to the plug-in (or lack thereof). Chrome under Ubuntu cannot find the plug-in to handle a PDF file. (Despite my various attempts.)

Now, I realize that the market share for Chrome on Ubuntu is quite small. I'm not seriously thinking that ADP would modify a web site to handle that small slice of the market.

But what about Windows 8?

The "Metro" version of IE does not support plug-ins -- of any kind. This web site will never work on the "Metro" side of Windows 8. (Or, I suspect, any future version of Windows.) While it does work on the "classic desktop" side (Windows 8 has two versions of IE, one for "Metro" and the other for "classic") it does not work on Windows RT. (And Windows RT has only the "Metro" version of IE.)

One would think that ADP would update their web site to handle this problem.

Or maybe not.

They have a mobile app. Two, actually: one for iOS and one for Android. (I suspect that ADP is developing a third for Windows RT.)

Native apps solve the problem of plug-ins. They solve other configuration issues. And they solve the problem of compatibility with old browsers.

Perhaps this is the right approach. If it is, then ADP will probably leave their web site in its current ("broken" as I see it) state. Is that a problem? Well, maybe, for a small number of users. (A Windows RT version of the app will solve the Windows 8 problems.)

I think we may see a shift from web development to mobile development. Web sites won't go away, but they won't be the premiere interface either. They will be a legacy interface, with mobile taking the lead.

Why apps are not web pages

Apps are not web pages. They are constructed differently, they perform differently (although some web pages made for smart phones are quite close to apps in behavior), and I believe that we perceive them differently.

Apps (especially when used on cell phones) are more intimate than web pages. Web pages live in a browser, which in turn lives in a PC or laptop. Apps live in our phones. Apps are closer to us.

Perhaps this is because we hold the cell phone in our hand (tablets too) but PCs we leave on the desk. Laptops are not as intimate as tablets, since we rarely hold laptops -- I put mine on a convenient desk or shelf, or maybe the floor.

The intimacy affects our expectations of apps. When I use an app, I expect two things: content tailored for me, and frequent changes to that content. I don't expect it of web pages. (Some pages, if I log in to a web site. But not all web sites.)

Facebook is a good example: it shows me "feeds" from my friends. This information is tailored for me (it's from the people I pick as friends) and the information changes daily (more than daily, actually).

But it's not just Facebook.

Yahoo Mail: Information that people have sent to me, or e-mail from lists to which I have subscribed.

Maps: Tailored for me, since it shows the local area. I can shift to a different area, if I choose.

Twitter: Close to Facebook in that it is tweets from people I choose to follow, with changes every hour.

The New York Times: Not tailored for me (the news is the same for everyone) but it changes daily and I pick the sections to display.

These web sites are "naturals" for conversion to apps. (And, in fact, they have been converted to apps.)

But some web sites will never "fly" as apps. These are the web sites that are generic (not personalized) and static (infrequent changes). These are sites that one visits rarely, and expects no personalized content. Sites such as "brochureware" for hotels and resorts, shopping sites, and even Wikipedia. (Wikipedia has an excellent web site for cell phones, but I don't see a need for an app.)

If I am right, then the great shift from the web to app will leave a large number of web sites behind. Even if their owners convert web site into an app, few people will download the app and fewer will use it.

If the personalizable web sites are "raptured" into apps, then what happens to the "left behind"? I see a need for the static, generic web sites -- smaller than the need for an app, but a need nonetheless -- and that need must be met. Will we keep the browser in our cell phones and tablets? Or will we build a new form to distribute static and non-personalized content?

Best if viewed in...

Some web sites display the phrase "best if viewed in Internet Explorer 6 or higher".

In the past, this phrase would anger me. I could assume that the web site work work only with Internet Explorer, and my browser of choice (either Opera or Firefox) would fail in some way.

Now the phrase amuses me.

I ask myself, in today's world, why would someone put "works best with IE6" on their web site? What are they hoping to accomplish? What message are they sending?

Internet Explorer version 6 is old. Even Microsoft recommends a later version of Internet Explorer.

Today's browser "market" consists of IE, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari at a bare minimum, and Opera and Lynx for the truly browser-aware. Building a web site for only one browser is unthinkable.

So the message is from an earlier age.

I also suspect that the message was put on sites that performed transactions of some sort, sites that were more than brochure-ware. These sites have users who are attempting to perform some task, either shopping or submitting time cards or recording information. My guess is that the message was a disclaimer, designed to first reduce the number of users with other browsers, and second to provide an easy "out" for the help desk of said web site when people using the "wrong". (Anyone complaining would be pointed to the notice and told to use IE6. Support call closed, user issue, no problem!)

Today, the notion of turning away customers because they have a different browser is ... unusual. It is a rare company that can decline paying customers.

I read the "best if viewed in" phrase now as an indicator, a measure of a web site's age and maintenance. Only web sites designed and built in the late 1990s (and possibly early 2000s) would have this message. Therefore, a site that still bears this message was built in that era and has had no (major) maintenance. Any maintenance that has been performed (if any) has been specific and limited to the task at hand.

In other words, the site is not living on "internet time". It's owner is not updating the site, modifying it to meet new business conditions or leverage new technologies. The web site is... old.

I use the phrase as an indication a company, of how "with it" they are.