[OT] HTML: div/iframe hybrid?

[Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d]

On 02/26/2015 04:34 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:36:04PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> Yea. Speaking of, that mobile-directed "no zoom" css thing is
>> seriously fucking evil. If browser devs had any basic integrity
>> whatsoever they'd deliberately ignore that abomination of an
>> attribute, or at least let any B&D users who enjoy being told what
>> they can't do on their own miniature device just opt-in to it.
>
> I find this trend extremely disturbing and exceptionally annoying. I
> wish every browser would come with an option to override everything the
> author tries to shove down your throat and using what YOU, the user,
> specify as default instead.
>

Yea. I'm a steadfast believer in the the design principle of "highly 
configurable with reasonable defaults". Ideally, everything should be 
configurable and nothing should NEED to be configured. Or as close to 
that as possible.

Unfortunately, it seems that most developers either don't see that 
possibility, or believe it to be far more difficult than it really is. 
Hence the trend towards Apple-ified software: "You'll take whatever we 
let you have and you'll like it. Because it makes things easier for us. 
Because our time is more important than yours. If you don't like it, 
you're wrong. Any dissatisfaction simply proves you're an unreasonable 
complainer."

What baffles me is that many modern developers seriously seem to HATE 
the idea of ever having to take any real-world user needs and use-cases 
into consideration. So why the F are they even writing any software in 
the first place? They obviously aren't writing it for the user, they 
make it quite clear they RESENT the user. So isn't it even easier still 
just to release nothing at all?

One of these days I still want to make an FF addon to just bring sanity 
back to the whole freaking thing. Maybe later split it off into its own 
Webkit/Chromium-based browser. I'm seriously fed up with Mozilla's BS 
(like you mentioned in a later post, way too much Chrome-envy, among 
other issues), but the only alternatives are worse.

> Just give me
> the content, m'am, keep all the frills to yourself. Oh, you mean there's
> nothing left after the frills and eye-candy are gone? Well, then, I'll
> move on to another site that actually sports content, thank you very
> much, have a nice day.
>

And "content" does NOT mean "A barely-meaningful slogan or two and a 
vaguely related image tossed onto a mostly-blank page. Scroll down to 
get a few more slogans and clipart." (*cough* mobile-first design *cough*)

But yea, that's the thing I don't get about the JS proponents: The 
argument always goes back to "It allows sites to be more dynamic!"[1] 
Umm, ok, and that's a good thing why exactly? They never seem to have a 
real reason of course, it's just taken for granted that "more dynamic" 
is unquestionably better, because it just is, and because we can. Oh 
yea, and call something "passe" because that'll REALLY prove some sort 
of worthwhile point.

[1] Then they also like tossing around the meaningless buzzword of 
"richer experience", thus proving they're only regurgitating groupthink 
and haven't actually thought through much of anything.