Here's the thing: after getting responses from 800+ developers, I've come to realise that most developers, or certainly everyone in this room, everyone watching, everyone reading, see progressive enhancement as a good thing. The "right thing" to do. They understand that it can deliver the web site's content to a wider audience. There's no doubt.
There's accessibility benefits and SEO benefits. SEO, I've heard directly from developers, is one way that the business has had buy in to taking a PE approach to development.
But the truth is: progressive enhancement is not part of the workflow.
What is Progressive Enhancement?
Well...it's a made up term by Steve Champeon who used it to describe the techniques he (or he and team) were using to build web sites instead of taking a graceful degradation approach.
As such, there's no one single line that defines progressive enhancement. However, Wikipedia defines it as:
[progressive enhancement] allows everyone to access the basic content and functionality of a web page, using any browser or Internet connection
Graceful degradation works the other way around, in that the complete functionality is delivered to the browser, and edge cases and "older browsers" (not meeting the technical requirements) degrade down to a (potentially) less functionality.
I ran a simple survey of my twitter followers and ask people to share the question too. It asked "what is progressive enhancement?" with 4 limited answers.
Which explains the silver bullet response of: "how would a WebRTC chat site work?" ...obviously it wouldn't.
Which to me, means delivering a baseline web site that's usable by the most minimal of requirements.
Very much what Jeremy Keith has said recently in response to criticism that it's impossible to progressively enhance everything with today's expectations. Progressive enhancement is:
...figuring out what is core functionality and what is an enhancement.
So the question becomes how does the web community re-frame it's thinking, and looks at progressive enhancement as the baseline that you build upon?
Why does it matter?
They do it by delivering and render views in the browser. The big upside of this is that the site is extremely fast to the user's input. The other big benefit is that there are a good number of frameworks (Angular, Ember, Polymer to name the "biggies" of today) that lend themselves greatly to client side MVC, i.e. full application logic in the client side code.
The problem is that the frameworks will often (try to) reinvent fundamental building blocks of a web experience. A few simple/classic examples:
- The link isn't a link at all, which means you can't open it in a new tab, or copy it, or share it...or even click it the way you'd expect to
- The button isn't a button
- You can't share a link to the page you're looking at (because it's all client side rendered and doesn't have a link)
- Screen readers can't navigate the content properly
This doesn't mean this isn't possible, just that it's more often forgotten. In the same way that Flash was often labelled as inaccessible. This wasn't true, it was possible to make Flash accessible, it's just that the default development path didn't include it.
A more extreme example of this is seen in Flipboard's mobile site. Importantly: mobile site. Flipboard render the entire page using a
canvas element. I can't speak for the accessibility of the site, but on mobile it performs beautifully. It feels..."native". And with that, it's also broken. I can't copy links, and I can't copy text - akin to the Flash apps and even Java applet days. It looks great, but it doesn't feel "of the web".
The problem is: browsers are pretty poor when compared to the proprietary and closed platforms they're constantly compared to.
There's pressure (from SF/Apple/who knows) to deliver web sites that feel "native" (no, I won't define this) and browsers are always playing catch up with native, proprietary platforms: this is a fact.
Native media elements, native sockets, native audio, native push notifications, native control over network - this all took it's merry time to get the browser. So when a company decides that the tried and tested approach to styling at list of articles won't give them the unique UX they want and the 60fps interaction, then of course they're going to bake up their own technology (in Flipboard's case, re-inventing wheels with canvas...the exact same way Bespin did back in it's day).
Angular, for instance, does not have a developer story for how to develop a site with progressive enhancement as a baseline.
Does this mean it's not possible? I don't think so. Without the stories though, developers will gravitate towards solved problems (understandably).
What does this story look like when a framework is a prerequisite of the project?
Web Components are a hot debate topic. They could cause all kinds of mess of the web. On the other hand, they're also a perfect fit for progressive enhancement.
Take the following HTML:
<input type="text" name="creditcard" required autocomplete="cc-number">
Notice that I'm not using the
pattern attribute because it's hard to match correctly to credit cards (they might have spaces between groups of numbers, or dashes, or not at all).
There's also no validation, and the first number also tells us what kind of card is being used (4 indicates a Visa card for instance).
A web component could progressively enhance the element similarly to the way the browser would natively enhance
type="date" for instance.
<stripe-cc-card> <input type="text" name="creditcard" required autocomplete="cc-number"> </stripe-cc-card>
I wonder, are web components the future of progressive enhancement?
Potential problems on the horizon
Developers are inherently lazy. It's what makes them/us optimise our workflows and become very good at solving problems. We re-use what's known to work and tend to eke out the complex parts that we can "live without". Sadly, this can be at the cost of accessibility and progressive enhancement.
"But progressive enhancement has nothing to do with ES-whatever..."
Taking a step back for a moment. Say we're writing an HTML only web site (no CSS or JS). But we want to use the latest most amazing native email validation:
<input type="email" required>
Simple. But...what happens if
type="email" isn't supported? Well, nothing bad. The element will be a text element (and we can validate on the server). The HTML doesn't break.
ES6 has features that breaks this design. Syntax breaking features that cannot exist alongside our ES5 and cannot be polyfilled. It must be transpiled.
There's a small number of ES6 features that are syntax breaking, the "arrow function" in particular.
The answer was a mix of:
- Use feature detection (including for syntax breaking features) and conditionally load the right script, either the ES5 or ES6
- Transpile your ES6 to ES5 and make both available
This seems brittle and the more complexity the more likely that as time goes by, new projects will leave out the transpile part, and forget about supporting older browsers - or even newer browsers that don't ship with ES6 support (perhaps because the VM footprint is smaller and has to work in a super low powered environment).
Is there a workflow that solves this? Or are we forced to support two incompatible languages on the web?
- Progressive enhancement is still important
- Be progressive
- Everyone has JavaSript, right?
- The True Cost of Progressive Enhancement
- The Ryanair Approach To Progressive Enhancement
- My Issue with Progressive Enhancement (@adactio's response)
- Progressive enhancement: a history lesson (and his reading list)
- Why Discourse uses Ember.js
- Progressive Enhancement: Zed’s Dead, Baby
Drafts may be incomplete or entirely abandoned, so please forgive me. If you find an issue with a draft, or would like to see me write about something specifically, please try raising an issue.