Edge Conf - London 2015

Written by: Dan Reeves On: 30 Jun 2015 In: Ramblings

I went to Edge conf this weekend; it was a fantastic day of meeting smart people and discussing the present and future of the web. Props to Facebook for superb hosting of the event and a big thank you to all the organizers.

The day was broken into four panels followed by three sets of “Break outs”. The day was accompanied by a Slack channel for discussion of the topics at hand, with questions in the chat often being fed into the panel discussion. This meant a very quick-fire exploration of the theme in which everyone had a say.


The first panel was on security on the web, moderated by Dan Appelquist and opened with a talk from Yan Zhu on why security is hard and what we can do about some common cases. Yan’s concern was that security is too damn hard and boring. A quick summary would be use CSPs and SSL everywhere.

The discussion mostly revolved around, the main sticking point for a lot of developers when trying to implement HTTPS, external sources not using HTTPS and causing insecure domain warnings. The solutions suggested ranged from carrots to sticks; ranking secure content higher in search results, only giving new web features to secure domains, and slowly deprecating features from HTTP sites. It was agreed that more pressure needs to be applied to ad networks to get them to move to HTTPS.

According to the panel getting HTTPS easily and for free will become a non-issue in the near future, with the release of LetsEncrypt. There was some concern that even though the process has been reduced to a single command it’s still not easy enough for the standard user.

Jeremy Keith quote

Everyone keeps using the word “developers” to refer to people who build the web. The web is for everyone. The thought of Code Club students having to learn how to deploy HTTPS horrifies me. — Jeremy Keith

Front end data

The front end data panel was lead by Jake Archibald with a keynote by Nolan Lawson. The keynote started with a long list of the types of storage available to the front end developer and then went through a list of applications of front end storage. Just some examples were the php.net autocomplete box, the Chrome Dev Summit site, and npm-browser.com. The point being that using local storage can lead to some really cool websites and slick experiences. It was also to show how a lot of people don’t realise the capabilities of the web.

IndexDB was easily the most popular topic, if only to complain about it. The panelists suggested that it has a low level API, which, while definitely not perfect, isn’t supposed to be used manually and should be smoothed over by libraries (à la the extensible web).

There was also talk of how trustworthy front end data is. Firstly it can be cleaned up by the browser/OS whenever it decides it needs that space. A user could also accidentally remove the data when clearing browser cache or similar. The conclusion was that there needs to be drastic improvement on the usabilty of front end data by the end user. Whether that’s on a per app basis or a browser implementation, users need more information and control over what the browser is storing, especially when there’s large amounts of data involved.

Another concern was security. How can you be sure that the local storage hasn’t been corrupted through an XSS, for example. Questions were raised such as “Should we be encrypting all local storage?” and “Should we have mechanisms to clear all local data?”.

Components and modules

The third panel of the day was mostly focussed on Web Components and what future they have. It was lead by Chris Heilmann with an opening keynote from Guy Bedford.

There was a lot of interest in the potential for shadow dom to hide complexity and the modularised model the web could move towards. However the discussion was dominated by the problems with Web Components in their current state. My take away was that web components are in no good state to use today and they might not be for a long time. Problems include:

  • There’s no finalized spec yet. This means inconsistent and wrong implementations. Some arguably important features such as is may not make it into the spec.
  • The polyfills are big and slow. Currently the best available is Polymer.
  • There’s no best practice deployment strategy. HTML Imports are currently in contention, meaning the only sensible deployment is to Vulcanize. Even if HTML Imports made it into browsers they only become performant with HTTP/2 which isn’t widespread enough yet, meaning either holding off on them or multiple deployment builds (Vulcanize and HTML Imports).
  • There’s no way of rendering on the server to optimise for first paint. This is an important point, as a lot of effort has been put into these sorts of optimisations on the web in the last couple of years. The major challenge here is a declarative shadow dom. It is almost possible, as seen in the Guitar Tuner app.

Jake Archibald brought up the point that we were talking about server rendering to fix the performance of Web Components, when surely that sort of consideration should be made in the spec.

In summary, I think the largest consensus on the room was that Web Components are a long way from being even worth using.

Progressive enhancement

'Fingers crossed this is not about JS vs non-JS' - Paul Irish

The final panel of the day way moderated by Lyza Danger Gardner and keynoted by Remy Sharp. This was probably the most discussed item of the day, being an important undercurrent in almost every session.

Remy’s keynote started by explaining how the term progressive enhancement is often geared towards the lowest common denominator and is more often than not defined as making something work without JavaScipt; unfortunately these misconceptions are widely spread. He continued to talk about examples of apps that can and can’t work without JS and explaining why that can be fine.

The core to progressive enhancement is deciding what is core functionality and what is an enhancement, and setting your own baseline requirements to satisfy the users needs.

There was a lot of great discussion that would be too long to summarise in this post so I recommend having a skim of the notes.

The key takeaways were, however:

  • We need to redefine progressive enhancement or come up with a better term.
  • It isn’t just about accessibility but availability.
  • The support baseline changes from project to project, depending on the tech required and the user expectations.
  • There’s too much emphasis on using every feature we can. We need processes in which the users preferences and context are taken into account.