Just over a year ago, Lifehacker changed their site and we all learned about the hashbang. I believed that pretty URLs mattered:
I would posit that, since the web is based on look and feel, the design of your site still relies, in part, on the ease of someone in understanding the URL.
Well Dan Webb agrees with me: 1
After quite a lot of thought and some attention to some of the issues that surround web apps that use hashbang URLs I’ve come to conclusion that it most definitely is about the hashbangs. This technique, on its own, is destructive to the web. The implementation is inappropriate, even as a temporary measure or as a downgrade experience.
This Dan guy happens to be in charge of switching Twitter from the #! back into nice, normal, readbale URLs:
@timhaines plus, now I’m in charge of undoing twitters hashbang URLs I can confirm that all the issues in that article are very real.
— Dan Webb (@danwrong) February 20, 2012
You can read the whole Twitter convo on Storify. But the take-away is, I admit, a little dance from me of ‘I told you so.’
In the comments of my previous post, someone pointed out that Google uses Hashbangs in a search. I have not seem them in my searches (here’s an example of what I do see on page 3 of a search for ‘sadasdas’):
The thing is, Google doesn’t matter in this instance. Actually, none of Googles URLs ever really matter when it comes to the reasons we want Pretty URLs. Remember our credos?
URLs are important. Yes, they are, but they’re important when you’re looking for something. They should be important on, say, YouTube, and they certainly are important on Google Code pages. But for a normal Google search? You don’t type in google.com/ipstenu or even google.com/search/ipstenu to find pages about ipstenu 2 Which is the point I was trying to make. When you go to a site for specific content, you want people to say ‘Go to ipstenu.org/about’ and be done with it.
URLs are forever. Again, yes they are, except when they’re not. For Google? This doesn’t matter. They don’t search themselves, and rarely do I know people who bookmark a Google search. But… Did you know Googles search URL formats are backwards compatible? That’s right. If you had an old URL saved, it would still be usable.
Cool URLs don’t change. Except for search URLs. But Google knows if you’ve gotta change ’em, make ’em backwards compatible. Ben Cherry has a nice article on why it’s good, too, which I found enlightening. I still don’t like them on the front end of websites, mind you, for a reason Ben points out:
The hashbang also brings a tangible benefit. Someday, we will hopefully be rid of the thing, when HTML5 History (or something like it) is standard in all browsers. The Web application is not going anywhere, and the hash is a fact of life.
That’s the problem right there. We’re building something we know is going to go away! We just broke a credo!
Are there ever reasons for using Hashbangs? Sure, but most of us will never need them. They’re great for loading AJAX which is awesome because you can load new parts of your site faster. Heck, WordPress has some AJAXification, but it’s primarily on the backend. They’re fantastic for web apps and they have some attractive functionality. But they don’t work for everyone, and they never will.
See, pushState is giving us these three things (among others):
- better looking urls: A ‘real’, bookmarkable, ‘server-reachable’ url.
- graceful degradation: Render correct pages when you don’t have JS enabled.
- faster loading: By only loading parts of the page, slow-net users can get the content faster.
The downside? It doesn’t work on IE right now. That’s okay, though, since it’s got graceful degradation, IE users will just have to manually refresh things. Which sucks for IE users, but perhaps will be the fire under Microsoft’s feet to get on that one.
Keep an eye out in your webapps. They’ll be moving over to this sooner than you think.