Journal tags: ar

Safari, Chrome, and Edge all allow you to install websites as though they’re apps.

On mobile Safari, this is done with the “Add to home screen” option that’s buried deep in the “share” menu, making it all but useless.

On the desktop, this is “Add to dock” in Safari, or “Install” in Chrome or Edge.

Firefox doesn’t offer this functionality, which as a shame. Firefox is my browser of choice but they decided a while back to completely abandon progressive web apps (though they might reverse that decision soon).

Anyway, being able to install websites as apps is fantastic! I’ve got a number of these “apps” in my dock: Mastodon, Bluesky, Instagram, The Session, Google Calendar, Google Meet. They all behave just like native apps. I can’t even tell which browser I used to initially install them.

If you’d like to prompt users to install your website as an app, there’s not much you can do other than show them how to do it. But that might be about to change…

I’ve been eagerly watching the proposal for a Web Install API. This would allow authors to put a button on a page that, when clicked, would trigger the installation process (the user would still need to confirm this, of course).

Right now it’s a JavaScript API called navigator.install, but there’s talk of having a declarative version too. Personally, I think this would be an ideal job for an invoker command. Making a whole new install element seems ludicrously over-engineered to me when button invoketarget="share" is right there.

Microsoft recently announced that they’d be testing the JavaScript API in an origin trial. I immediately signed up The Session for the trial. Then I updated the site to output the appropriate HTTP header.

You still need to mess around in the browser configs to test this locally. Go to edge://flags or chrome://flags/ and search for ‘Web App Installation API’, enable it and restart.

I’m now using this API on the homepage of The Session. Unsurprisingly, I’ve wrapped up the functionality into an HTML web component that I call button-install.

Here’s the code. You use it like this:

<button-install>
  <button>Install the app</button>
</button-install>

Use whatever text you like inside the button.

I wasn’t sure whether to keep the button element in the regular DOM or generate it in the Shadow DOM of the custom element. Seeing as the button requires JavaScript to do anything, the Shadow DOM option would make sense. As Tess put it, Shadow DOM is for hiding your shame—the bits of your interface that depend on JavaScript.

In the end I decided to stick with a regular button element within the custom element, but I take steps to remove it when it’s not necessary.

There’s a potential issue in having an element that could self-destruct if the browser doesn’t cut the mustard. There might be a flash of seeing the button before it gets removed. That could even cause a nasty layout shift.

So far I haven’t seen this problem myself but I should probably use something like Scott’s CSS in reverse: fade in the button with a little delay (during which time the button might end up getting removed anyway).

My connectedCallback method starts by finding the button nested in the custom element:

class ButtonInstall extends HTMLElement {
  connectedCallback () {
    this.button = this.querySelector('button');
    …
  }
customElements.define('button-install', ButtonInstall);

If the navigator.install method doesn’t exist, remove the button.

if (!navigator.install) {
  this.button.remove();
  return;
}

If the current display-mode is standalone, then the site has already been installed, so remove the button.

if (window.matchMedia('(display-mode: standalone)').matches) {
  this.button.remove();
  return;
}

As an extra measure, I could also use the display-mode media query in CSS to hide the button:

@media (display-mode: standalone) {
  button-install button {
    display: none;
  }
}

If the button has survived these tests, I can wire it up to the navigator.install method:

this.button.addEventListener('click', async (ev) => {
  await navigator.install();
});

That’s all I’m doing for now. I’m not doing any try/catch stuff to handle all the permutations of what might happen next. I just hand it over to the browser from there.

Feel free to use this code if you want. Adjust the code as needed. If your manifest file says display: fullscreen you’ll need to change the test in the JavaScript accordingly.

Oh, and make sure your site already has a manifest file that has an id field in it. That’s required for navigator.install to work.

Here’s the schedule for Web Day Out—what a fantastic collection of talks!

Web Day Out

10:00 – 10:30	I can’t believe it’s not JavaScript	Jemima Abu
10:30 – 11:00	A pragmatic guide to browser support	Rachel Andrew
11:30 – 12:00	Progressive web apps from the trenches	Aleth Gueguen
12:00 – 12:30	Build for the web, build on the web, build with the web	Harry Roberts
14:00 – 14:30	Breaking with habits	Manuel Matuzovič
14:30 – 15:00	What’s new in web typography?	Richard Rutter
15:30 – 16:00	Customisable <select> and the friends we made along the way	Jake Archibald
16:00 – 16:30	The browser is the playground	Lola Odelola

Seeing all of those talk titles in a row is getting me very, very excited for this day!

I hope that you’re excited too, and I hope you’ve got your ticket already.

If you need to convince your boss to send you (and your team) to Web Day Out I’ve put together some reasons to attend along with an email template that you can use as a starting point.

Also, if your company is sending a group of people anyway, consider sponsoring Web Day Out. You get a bunch of conference tickets as part of the sponsorship deal.

Hope to see you in Brighton on Thursday, 12 March 2026!

This isn’t a rhetorical question. I genuinely want to know why developers choose to build websites using React.

There are many possible reasons. Alas, none of them relate directly to user experience, other than a trickle-down justification: happy productive developers will make better websites. Citation needed.

It’s also worth mentioning that some people don’t choose to use React, but its use is mandated by their workplace (like some other more recent technologies I could mention). By my definition, this makes React enterprise software in this situation. My definition of enterprise software is any software that you use but that you yourself didn’t choose.

Inertia

By far the most common reason for choosing React today is inertia. If it’s what you’re comfortable with, you’d need a really compelling reason not to use it. That’s generally the reason behind usage mandates too. If we “standardise” on React, then it’ll make hiring more straightforward (though the reality isn’t quite so simple, as the React ecosystem has mutated and bifurcated over time).

And you know what? Inertia is a perfectly valid reason to choose a technology. If time is of the essence, and you know it’s going to take you time to learn a new technology, it makes sense to stick with what you know, even if it’s out of date. This isn’t just true of React, it’s true of any tech stack.

This would all be absolutely fine if React weren’t a framework that gets executed in browsers. Any client-side framework is a tax on the end user. They have to download, parse, and execute the framework in order for you to benefit.

But maybe React doesn’t need to run in the browser at all. That’s the promise of server-side rendering.

The front end

There used to be a fairly clear distinction between front-end development and back-end development. The front end consisted of HTML, CSS, and client-side JavaScript. The back end was anything you wanted as long as it could spit out those bits of the front end: PHP, Ruby, Python, or even just a plain web server with static files.

Then it became possible to write JavaScript on the back end. Great! Now you didn’t need to context-switch when you were scripting for the client or the server. But this blessing also turned out to be a bit of a curse.

When you’re writing code for the back end, some things matter more than others. File size, for example, isn’t really a concern. Your code can get really long and it probably won’t slow down the execution. And if it does, you can always buy your way out of the problem by getting a more powerful server.

On the front end, your code should have different priorities. File size matters, especially with JavaScript. The code won’t be executed on your server. It’s executed on all sorts of devices on all sorts of networks running all sorts of browsers. If things get slow, you can’t buy your way out of the problem because you can’t buy every single one of your users a new device and a new network plan.

Now that JavaScript can run on the server as well as the client, it’s tempting to just treat the code the same. It’s the same language after all. But the context really matters. Some JavaScript that’s perfectly fine to run on the server can be a resource hog on the client.

And this is where it gets interesting with React. Because most of the things people like about React still apply on the back end.

React developers

When React first appeared, it was touted as front-end tool. State management and a near-magical virtual DOM were the main selling points.

Over time, that’s changed. The claimed speed benefits of the virtual DOM turned out to be just plain false. That just left state management.

But by that time, the selling points had changed. The component-based architecture turned out to be really popular. Developers liked JSX. A lot. Once you got used to it, it was a neat way to encapsulate little bits of functionality into building blocks that can be combined in all sorts of ways.

For the longest time, I didn’t realise this had happened. I was still thinking of React as being a framework like jQuery. But React is a framework like Rails or Django. As a developer, it’s where you do all your work. Heck, it’s pretty much your identity.

But whereas Rails or Django run on the back end, React runs on the front end …except when it doesn’t.

JavaScript can run on the server, which means React can run on the server. It’s entirely possible to have your React cake and eat it. You can write all of your code in React without serving up a single line of React to your users.

That’s true in theory. The devil is in the tooling.

Priorities

Next.js allows you to write in React and do server-side rendering. But it really, really wants to output React to the client as well.

By default, you get the dreaded hydration pattern—do all the computing on the server in JavaScript (yay!), serve up HTML straight away (yay! yay!) …and then serve up all the same JavaScript that’s on the server anyway (ya—wait, what?).

It’s possible to get Next.js to skip that last step, but it’s not easy. You’ll be battling it every step of the way.

Astro takes a very different approach. It will do everything it can to keep the client-side JavaScript to a minimum. Developers get to keep their beloved JSX authoring environment without penalising users.

Alas, the collective inertia of the “modern” development community is bound up in the React/Next/Vercel ecosystem. That’s a shame, because Astro shows us that it doesn’t have to be this way.

Switching away from using React on the front end doesn’t mean you have to switch away from using React on the back end.

Why use React?

The titular question I asked is too broad and naïve. There are plenty of reasons to use React, just as there are plenty of reasons to use Wordpress, Eleventy, or any other technology that works on the back end. If it’s what you like or what you’re comfortable with, that’s reason enough.

All I really care about is the front end. I’m not going to pass judgment on anyone’s choice of server-side framework, as long as it doesn’t impact what you can do in the client. Like Harry says:

…if you’re going to use one, I shouldn’t be able to smell it.

Here’s the question I should be asking:

Why use React in the browser?

Because if the reason you’re using React is cultural—the whole team works in JSX, it makes hiring easier—then there’s probably no need to make your users download React.

If you’re making a single-page app, then …well, the first thing you should do is ask yourself if it really needs to be a single-page app. They should be the exception, not the default. But if you’re determined to make a single-page app, then I can see why state management becomes very important.

In that situation, try shipping Preact instead of React. As a developer, you’ll almost certainly notice no difference, but your users will appreciate the refreshing lack of bloat.

Mostly though, I’d encourage you to investigate what you can do with vanilla JavaScript in the browser. I totally get why you’d want to hold on to React as an authoring environment, but don’t let your framework limit what you can do on the front end. If you use React on the client, you’re not doing your users any favours.

You can continue to write in React. You can continue to use JSX. You can continue to hire React developers. But keep it on your machine. For your users, make the most of what web browsers can do.

Once you keep React on the server, then a whole world of possibilities opens up on the client. Web browsers have become incredibly powerful in what they offer you. Don’t let React-on-the-client hold you back.

And if you want to know more about what web browsers are capable of today, come to Web Day Out in Brighton on Thursday, 12th March 2026.

The line-up for Web Day Out is now complete! The final speaker to be added to the line-up is the one and only Manuel Matuzovič.

You may know Manuel from his superb Web Accessibility Cookbook (full disclosure: I had the honour of writing the foreword to that book). Or perhaps you’re familiar with the crimes against markup that he documents at HTMHell. But at Web Day Out, he’s going to be talking about CSS.

The past few years have seen a veritable explosion in CSS capabilities. It’s one thing to hear about all the new stuff in CSS, but how do you actually start using it?

You may need to unlearn what you have previously learned. That’s what Manuel’s talk will be covering:

Manuel built a new project from scratch with modern CSS and questioned every line of code he wrote.

In this talk, he presents what he has learned and encourages you to review your best practices.

You can see why I’m so excited about this—it’s perfect for the agenda of Web Day Out:

Do you feel like you’re missing out on some of the latest advances in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript APIs? Web Day Out is your chance to get up to speed on what matters.

There’ll be eight brilliant speakers for your entertainment:

1. Jemima Abu
2. Rachel Andrew
3. Jake Archibald
4. Aleth Gueguen
5. Manuel Matuzovič
6. Lola Odelola
7. Harry Roberts
8. Richard Rutter

You won’t want to miss this, so get your ticket now for the ludicrously reasonable price of just £225+VAT!

See you in Brighton on 12 March 2026!

I find Brian Eno to be a fascinating chap. His music isn’t my cup of tea, but I really enjoy hearing his thoughts on art, creativity, and culture.

I’ve always loved this short piece he wrote about singing with other people. I’ve passed that link onto multiple people who have found a deep joy in singing with a choir:

Singing aloud leaves you with a sense of levity and contentedness. And then there are what I would call “civilizational benefits.” When you sing with a group of people, you learn how to subsume yourself into a group consciousness because a capella singing is all about the immersion of the self into the community. That’s one of the great feelings — to stop being me for a little while and to become us. That way lies empathy, the great social virtue.

Then there’s the whole Long Now thing, a phrase that originated with him:

I noticed that this very local attitude to space in New York paralleled a similarly limited attitude to time. Everything was exciting, fast, current, and temporary. Enormous buildings came and went, careers rose and crashed in weeks. You rarely got the feeling that anyone had the time to think two years ahead, let alone ten or a hundred. Everyone seemed to be passing through. It was undeniably lively, but the downside was that it seemed selfish, irresponsible and randomly dangerous. I came to think of this as “The Short Now”, and this suggested the possibility of its opposite - “The Long Now”.

I was listening to my Huffduffer feed recently, where I had saved yet another interview with Brian Eno. Sure enough, there was plenty of interesting food for thought, but the bit that stood out to me was relevant to, of all things, prototyping:

I have an architect friend called Rem Koolhaas. He’s a Dutch architect, and he uses this phrase, “the premature sheen.” In his architectural practice, when they first got computers and computers were first good enough to do proper renderings of things, he said everything looked amazing at first.

You could construct a building in half an hour on the computer, and you’d have this amazing-looking thing, but, he said, “It didn’t help us make good buildings. It helped us make things that looked like they might be good buildings.”

I went to visit him one day when they were working on a big new complex for some place in Texas, and they were using matchboxes and pens and packets of tissues. It was completely analog, and there was no sense at all that this had any relationship to what the final product would be, in terms of how it looked.

It meant that what you were thinking about was: How does it work? What do we want it to be like to be in that place? You started asking the important questions again, not: What kind of facing should we have on the building or what color should the stone be?

I keep thinking about that insight: “It didn’t help us make good buildings. It helped us make things that looked like they might be good buildings.”

Substitute the word “buildings” for whatever output is supposedly being revolutionised by generative models today. Websites. Articles. Public policy.

If you’re building software, it’s generally a good idea to avoid the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. This is when you insist on writing absolutely everything from scratch even if it would make more sense to use a third-party provider.

Need your app to take payments? Don’t try to become your own payment provider—use an existing provider instead.

Need your app to send email? Don’t try to code all that up yourself—just use an existing service.

This same thinking seems to apply to JavaScript libraries too. If you don’t use a library or framework, you’ll just end up writing your own library or framework instead, right?

Except that’s not the way that JavaScript frameworks work. At least not any more.

There was a time when JavaScript libraries really did abstract away browser differences that you probably didn’t want to deal with yourself. In the early days of jQuery—before querySelector existed—trying to work with the DOM could be a real pain. Libraries like jQuery helped avoid that pain.

Maybe it was even true in the early days of Angular and React. If you were trying to handle navigations yourself, it probably made sense to use a framework.

But that’s not the case any more, and hasn’t been for quite a while.

These days, client-side JavaScript frameworks don’t abstract away the underlying platform, they instead try to be an alternative. In fact, if you attempt to use web platform features, your JavaScript framework will often get in the way. You have to wait until your framework of choice supports a feature like view transitions before you get to use it.

This is nuts. Developers are choosing to use tools that actively get in the way of the web platform.

I think that most developers have the mental model of JavaScript frameworks completely backwards. They believe that the framework saves them time and effort (just like a payment provider or an email service). Instead these frameworks are simply limiting the possibility space of what you can do in web browsers today.

When you use a JavaScript framework, that isn’t the end of your work, it’s just the beginning. You still have to write your own code that makes use of that framework. Except now your code is restricted to only what the framework can do.

And yet most developers still believe that using a JavaScript framework somehow enables them to do more.

Jim Nielsen has a great framing on this. JavaScript libraries aren’t like payment providers or email services. Rather, it’s the features built into web browsers today that are like these third-party providers. When you use these features, you’re benefiting from all the work that the browser makers have put into making them as efficient as possible:

Browser makers have teams of people who, day-in and day-out, are spending lots of time developing and optimizing new their offerings.

So if you leverage what they offer you, that gives you an advantage because you don’t have to build it yourself.

Want to do nifty page transitions? Don’t use a library. Use view transitions.

Want to animate parts of the page as the user scrolls? Don’t use a library. Use scroll-driven animations.

Want to make something happen when the user clicks? Don’t use a library. For the love of all that is holy, just use a button.

If you agree that using a button makes more sense than using a div, then I encourage you to apply the same thinking to everything else your app needs to do.

Take advantage of all the wonderful things you can do in web browsers today. If instead you decide to use a JavaScript framework, you’re basically inventing from scratch.

Except now all of your users pay the price because they’re the ones who have to download the JavaScript framework when they use your app.

UX London will be back in 2026. It’s on June 2nd, 3rd, and 4th:

Each day features a morning packed with inspiring talks followed by an afternoon of practical hands-on workshops. It’s the perfect blend!

As with last year, each day will be themed:

• 2 June 2026: discovery day
• 3 June 2026: design day
• 4 June 2026: delivery day

You can come for a single day, but for best value, you should come for all three days.

I’m starting to put the line-up together now—hoping to match the excellence of last year’s event—and I’ll start announcing speakers early in the new year.

But if you trust me, then I highly recommend getting a super-early bird ticket now. They’ll only be available for another couple of weeks. You get a significant discount if you buy now.

Oh, and while I’m in the process of putting the line-up together, you should know that you can submit a talk or workshop proposal:

We always pay ALL our speakers for their time as well as covering the cost of accommodation and economy travel.

Don’t be shy! Pitch early, pitch often.

(That said, I wouldn’t recommend pitching a talk that focuses on “AI”. It’s not just that the bubble will probably have burst by the time UX London rolls around, it’s also that UX London doesn’t tend to focus on tools, whether they’re graphic design tools like Figma or generative tools like whatever people are using to turbo-charge their output of slop. If you’ve got a case study you want to talk about that happened to use some “AI” tool, great! But don’t make that the focus of the talk. Tell me about the problem and the solution.)

Almost two months ago, I put out the call for speaker suggestions for Web Day Out. I got some good responses—thank you to everyone who took the time to get in touch.

The response that really piqued my interest was from Aleth Gueguen. She proposed a talk on progressive web apps, backed up with plenty of experience. The more I thought about it, the more I realised how perfect it would be for Web Day Out.

So I’m very pleased to announce that Aleth will be speaking at Web Day Out about progressive web apps from the trenches:

Find out about the most important capabilities in progressive web apps and how to put them to work.

I’m really excited about this line-up! This is going to be a day out that you won’t want to miss. Get your ticket for a mere £225+VAT if you haven’t already!

See you in Brighton on 12 March, 2026!

On the last day of UX London this year, I was sitting and chatting with Rachel Coldicutt who was going to be giving the closing keynote. Inevitably the topic of converstation worked its way ’round to “AI”. I remember Rachel having a good laugh when I summarised my overall feeling:

I kind of wish I could go into suspended animation and be woken up when all this is over and things have settled down one way or another.

I still feel that way. Like Gina, I’d welcome a measured approach to this technology. As Anil puts it:

Technologies like LLMs have utility, but the absurd way they’ve been over-hyped, the fact they’re being forced on everyone, and the insistence on ignoring the many valid critiques about them make it very difficult to focus on legitimate uses where they might add value.

I very much look forward to using language models (probably small and local) to automate genuinely tedious tasks. That’s a very different vision to what the slopagandists are pushing. Or, like Paul Ford says:

Make it boring. That’s what’s interesting.

Fortunately, my cryosleep-awakening probably isn’t be too far off. You can smell it in the air, that whiff of a bubble about to burst. And while it will almost certainly be messy, it’s long overdue.

Paul Ford again:

I’ve felt so alienated from tech over the past couple of years. Part of it is the craven authoritarianism. It dampens the mood. But another part is the monolithic narrative—the fact that we live in a world where there seem to be only a few companies, only a few stories going at any time, and everything reduces to politics. God, please let it end.

I had a very pleasant experience last week while I was reading through the RSS feeds I’m subscribed to. I came across two blog posts that were responding to blog posts of my own.

Robin Sloan wrote a post clarifying his position after I linked to him in my post about the slipperiness of the term “AI”.

Then Jim Nielsen wrote a deliciously satirical piece in response to my pithy little parable about research.

I love it when this happens!

Elizabeth Spiers recently wrote a piece called What Made Blogging Different?:

And if they wanted to respond to you, they had to do it on their own blog, and link back. The effect of this was that there were few equivalents of the worst aspects of social media that broke through.

It’s so true. I feel like a response from someone’s own website is exponentially more valuable than a response on Bluesky, Mastodon, Instagram, or any other social media platform.

Don’t get me wrong: I absolutely love the way that Brid.gy will send those social-media responses right back here to my own site in the form of webmentions. It also pings me whenever someone likes or shares a post of mine. But I’ve noticed that I’m not that interested in those anymore.

Maybe those low-investment actions were carried over from the old days of Twitter just because that’s the way things were always done, without us really asking whether they serve much purpose.

Right now I accept these likes and shares as webmentions. I display a tally of each kind of response under my posts. But I’m not sure why I’m doing it. I don’t particularly care about these numbers. I’m pretty sure no one else cares either.

If I cared, then they’d be vanity metrics. As it is they’re more like zombie metrics. I should probably just put them out of their misery.

I’m very happy to announce that the one and only Jake Jaffa-The-Cake Archibald will be speaking at Web Day Out!

Given the agenda for this event, I think you’ll agree that Jake is a perfect fit. He’s been at the forefront of championing user-centred web standards, writing specs and shipping features in browsers.

Along the way he’s also created two valuable performance tools that I use all the time: SVGOMG and Squoosh, which has a permanent place in my dock—if you need to compress images, I highly recommend adding this progressive web app to your desktop.

He’s the man behind service workers and view transitions—two of the most important features for making websites first-class citizens on any device.

So what will he talk about at Web Day Out? Image formats? Offline functionality? Smooth animations? Something else entirely?

All will be revealed soon. In the meantime, grab yourself a ticket to Web Day Out—it’s just £225+VAT—and I’ll see you in Brighton on Thursday, 12 March 2026!

Tim recently gave a talk at Smashing Conference in New York called One Step Ahead. Based on the slides, it looks like it was an excellent talk.

Towards the end, there’s a slide that could be the tagline for Web Day Out:

Betting on the browser is our best chance at long-term success.

Most of the talk focuses on two technologies that you can add to any website with just a couple of lines of code: view transitions and speculation rules.

I’m using both of them on The Session and I can testify to their superpowers—super-snappy navigations with smooth animations.

Honestly, that takes care of 95% of the reasons for building a single-page app (the other 5% would be around managing state, which most sites—e-commerce, publishing, whatever—don’t need to bother with). Instead build a good ol’-fashioned website with pages of HTML linked together, then apply view transitions and speculation rules.

I mean, why wouldn’t you do that?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I’m genuinely interested in the reasons why people would reject a simple declarative solution in favour of the complexity of doing everything with a big JavaScript framework.

One reason might be browser support. After all, both view transitions and speculation rules are designed to be used as progressive enhancements, regardless of how many browsers happen to support them right now. If you want to attempt to have complete control, I understand why you might reach for the single-page app model, even if it means bloating the initial payload.

But think about that mindset for a second. Rather than reward the browsers that support modern features, you would instead be punishing them. You’d be treating every browser the same. Instead of taking advantage of the amazing features that some browsers have, you’d rather act as though they’re no different to legacy browsers.

I kind of understand the thinking behind that. You assume a level playing field by treating every browser as though they’re Internet Explorer. But what a waste! You ship tons of uneccesary code to perfectly capable browsers.

That could be the tagline for React.

Suppose somebody is using a blade. Perhaps they’re in the bathroom, shaving. Or maybe they’re in the kitchen, preparing food.

Suppose they cut themselves with that blade. This might have happened because the blade was too sharp. Or perhaps the blade was too dull.

Either way, it’s going to be tricky to figure out the reason just by looking at the wound.

But if you talk to the person, not only will you find out the reason, you’ll also understand their pain.

I was messing about with some images on a website recently and while I was happy enough with the arrangement on large screens, I thought it would be better to have the images in a kind of carousel on smaller screens—a swipable gallery.

My old brain immediately thought this would be fairly complicated to do, but actually it’s ludicrously straightforward. Just stick this bit of CSS on the containing element inside a media query (or better yet, a container query):

display: flex;
overflow-x: auto;

That’s it.

Oh, and you can swap out overflow-x for overflow-inline if, like me, you’re a fan of logical properties. But support for that only just landed in Safari so I’d probably wait a little while before removing the old syntax.

Here’s an example using pictures of some of the lovely people who will be speaking at Web Day Out:

While you’re at it, add this:

overscroll-behavior-inline: contain;

Thats prevents the user accidentally triggering a backwards/forwards navigation when they’re swiping.

You could add some more little niceties like this, but you don’t have to:

scroll-snap-type: inline mandatory;
scroll-behavior: smooth;

And maybe this on the individual items:

scroll-snap-align: center;

You could progressively enhance even more with the new pseudo-elements like ::scroll-button() and ::scroll-marker for Chromium browsers.

Apart from that last bit, none of this is particularly new or groundbreaking. But it was a pleasant reminder for me that interactions that used to be complicated to implement are now very straightforward indeed.

Here’s another example that Ana Tudor brought up yesterday:

You have a section with a p on the left & an img on the right. How do you make the img height always be determined by the p with the tiniest bit of CSS? 😼

No changing the HTML structure in any way, no pseudos, no background declarations, no JS. Just a tiny bit of #CSS.

Old me would’ve said it can’t be done. But with a little bit of investigating, I found a nice straightforward solution:

section >  img {
  contain: size;
  place-self: stretch;
  object-fit: cover;
}

That’ll work whether the section has its display set to flex or grid.

There’s something very, very satisfying in finding a simple solution to something you thought would be complicated.

Honestly, I feel like web developers are constantly being gaslit into thinking that complex over-engineered solutions are the only option. When the discourse is being dominated by people invested in frameworks and libraries, all our default thinking will involve frameworks and libraries. That’s not good for users, and I don’t think it’s good for us either.

Of course, the trick is knowing that the simpler solution exists. The information probably isn’t going to fall in your lap—especially when the discourse is dominated by overly-complex JavaScript.

So get yourself a ticket for Web Day Out. It’s on Thursday, March 12th, 2026 right here in Brighton.

I guarantee you’ll hear about some magnificent techniques that will allow you to rip out plenty of complex code in favour of letting the browser do the work.

When I talk about large language models, I make sure to call them large language models, not “AI”. I know it’s a lost battle, but the terminology matters to me.

The term “AI” can encompass everything from a series of if/else statements right up to Skynet and HAL 9000. I’ve written about this naming collision before.

It’s not just that the term “AI” isn’t useful, it’s so broad as to be actively duplicitous. While talking about one thing—like, say, large language models—you can point to a completely different thing—like, say, machine learning or computer vision—and claim that they’re basically the same because they’re both labelled “AI”.

If a news outlet runs a story about machine learning in the context of disease prevention or archeology, the headline will inevitably contain the phrase “AI”. That story will then gleefully be used by slopagandists looking to inflate the usefulness of large language models.

Conflating these different technologies is the fallacy at the heart of Robin Sloan’s faulty logic:

If these machines churn through all media, and then, in their deployment, discover several superconductors and cure all cancers, I’d say, okay … we’re good.

John Scalzi recently wrote:

“AI” is mostly a marketing phrase for a bunch of different processes and tools which in a different era would have been called “machine learning” or “neural networks” or something else now horribly unsexy.

But I’ve noticed something recently. More than once I’ve seen genuinely-useful services refer to their technology as “traditional machine learning”.

First off, I find that endearing. Like machine learning is akin to organic farming or hand-crafted furniture.

Secondly, perhaps it points to a severing of the ways between machine learning and large language models.

Up until now it may have been mutually benificial for them to share the same marketing term, but with the bubble about to burst, anything to do with large language models might become toxic by association, including the term “AI”. Hence the desire to shake the large-language model grifters from the coattails of machine learning and computer vision.

While I’ve been listening to Hounds Of Love, I’ve also been reading Orbital by Samantha Harvey.

Here’s a passage from an early chapter as the crew of the International Space Station watch a typhoon forming:

How wired and wakeful the earth seems suddenly. It’s not one of the regular typhoons that haphazardly assault these parts of the world, they agree. They can’t see it all, but it’s bigger than projections had previously thought, and moving faster. They send their images, the latitudes and longitudes. They are like fortune tellers, the crew. Fortune tellers who can see and tell the future but do nothing to change or stop it. Soon their orbit will descend away to the east and south and no matter how they crane their necks backward at the earth-viewing windows the typhoon will roll out of sight and their vigil will end and darkness will hit them at speed.

They have no power – they have only their cameras and a privileged anxious view of its building magnificence. They watch it come.

The penultimate track on Hounds Of Love is the magnificent Hello Earth with its eerie Georgian chant for a chorus, and magnificent uilleann piping from the late great Liam Óg O’Flynn on the bridge. It too features a narrator watching from space:

Watching storms

Start to form

Over America.

Can’t do anything.

Just watch them swing

With the wind

Out to sea.

All you sailors, (“Get out of the waves! Get out of the water!”)

All life-savers, (“Get out of the waves! Get out of the water!”)

All you cruisers, (“Get out of the waves! Get out of the water!”)

All you fishermen,

Head for home.

Matching the song to the book feels like pairing a fine wine with a delicious morsel.

The album Hounds Of Love by Kate Bush turned 40 years old this month. It has really stood the test of time. It still sounds like nothing else.

It’s kind of two albums in one.

There’s the A side with all those perfect pop songs—Running Up That Hill, Hounds Of Love, Cloudbusting, The Big Sky—each one brilliant and self-contained.

Then there’s the B side, The Ninth Wave. It’s like its own concept album within an album. It’s weird and challening, but I love it.

At times it’s downright frightening but the whole thing ends on a joyous note with The Morning Fog. There’s something about the clarity of the closing lines that brings me to tears:

I’ll tell my mother
I’ll tell my father
I’ll tell my loved one
I’ll tell my brothers
How much I love them

That’s after the magnificence of The Jig Of Life which happily crosses over with my love of Irish traditional music.

But, as with traditional Irish music, Hounds Of Love was not something I was into when I was growing up. Quite the opposite.

See, my brother was really into Kate Bush. And if my brother was into something, then I didn’t want anything to do with it. We didn’t really get along.

Mostly that worked out fine. I don’t think missed out on much by avoiding the Electric Light Orchestra, the Alan Parsons Project, and other Partridge-esque bands. But I was wrong to avoid Kate Bush.

It was only by the time I got to art college that I was able to listen to Hounds Of Love objectively, encouraged to do so by a girlfriend at the time who was a huge fan.

Now I’m listening to it again.

Ah, those closing lines …there’s just something about them.

If you work at a clever company, then you should let them know about sponsoring Web Day Out.

All the details are in this PDF sponsorship pack. Basically there are three (and only three) spots available, at three different levels of sponsorship.

One of the best things about the venue for Web Day Out is that always having an excellent auditorium, the Studio Theatre has a really nice space for the breaks. It would be the perfect spot to set up a stand and chat with all the smart attendees.

All the attendees will, by definition, be smart because they got tickets for Web Day Out—a steal at just £225+VAT.

I was going to save this announcement for later, but I’m just too excited: Harry Roberts will be speaking at Web Day Out!

Goddamn, that’s one fine line-up, and it isn’t even complete yet! Get your ticket if you haven’t already.

There’s a bit of a story behind the talk that Harry is going to give…

Earlier this year, Harry posted a most excellent screed in which he said:

The web as a platform is a safe bet. It’s un-versioned by design. That’s the commitment the web makes to you—take advantage of it.

• Opt into web platform features incrementally;
• Embrace progressive enhancement to build fast, reliable applications that adapt to your customers’ context;
• Write code that leans into the browser, not away from it.

Yes! Exactly!

Thing is, Harry posted this on LinkedIn. My indieweb sensibilities were affronted. So I harangued him:

You should blog this, Harry

My pestering paid off with an excellent blog post on Harry’s own site called Build for the Web, Build on the Web, Build with the Web:

The beauty of opting into web platform features as they become available is that your site becomes contextual. The same codebase adapts into its environment, playing to its strengths, rather than trying to build and ship your own environment from the ground up. Meet your users where they are.

That’s a pretty neat summation of the agenda for Web Day Out. So I thought, “Hmm …if I was able to pester Harry to turn a LinkedIn post into a really good blog post, I wonder if I could pester him to turn that blog post into a talk?”

I threw down the gauntlet. Harry accepted the challenge.

I’m sure you’re already familiar with Harry’s excellent work, but if you’re not, he’s basically Mr. Web Performance. That’s why I’m so excited to have him speak at Web Day Out—I want to hear the business case for leaning into what web browsers can do today, and he is most certainly the best person to bring receipts.

You won’t want to miss this, so be sure to get your ticket now; it’s only £225+VAT.

If you’re not ready to commit just yet, but you want to hear about more speaker announcements like this, you can sign up to the mailing list.

I read recently read two books that had writers as their main protagonists:

• Death Of The Author by Nnedi Okorafor, and
• Yellowface by Rebecca F Kuang.

They were both perfectly fine. But I found it hard to get really involved in either narrative. The stakes just never felt that high.

Not that high stakes a pre-requisite for a gripping narrative. I enjoyed the films The Social Network and Like A Complete Unknown. Those stakes couldn’t be lower. One is about a website that might’ve ripped off its idea from another website. The other is about someone who’d like to play different kinds of music but other people would rather he played the same music. It’s a credit to the writers and directors of both films that they could create compelling stories from such objectively unimportant subjects.

Getting back to those two books, maybe there’s something navel-gazey when writers write about writing. Then again, I really like non-fiction books about writing from Ann Lamott, Stephen King, and more.

Perhaps it’s not the writing part, but the milieu of publishing.

I’m trying to think if there are any great films about film-making (Inception doesn’t count). Living In Oblivion is pretty great. But a lot of its appeal is that it’s not taking itself too seriously.

All too often when a story is set in its own medium (a book about publishing; a film about film-making) it runs the risk of over-estimating its own importance.

The most eye-rolling example of this is The Morning Show, a television show about a television show. It genuinely tries to make the case for the super-important work being done by vacuous morning chat shows.