The problem is that we use the internet for more than just sites, we use it for web applications now too. Making sure the site works without javascript is usually possible, but often much more work. For sites that are presenting information to me, or where I'm interacting in a minimal way, a well defined static interface is preferable. For complex applications, I would definitely prefer a more rich experience than is provided by HTML+CSS and HTTP (although with HTML5 it's not as bad as it used to be).
I recently realized how often web developers defending the status quo have internalized a circular reasoning regarding "what the Internet is for". So the Internet is for web applications now, so we need to have all that stupid crap in CSS and dump metric tons of JavaScript on everyone. But if you suggest that maybe we should then drop the content/layout "separation" and make CSS actually nice to work with, the same people will tell you that "web is for documents", so what we have now is good.
I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't split the Internet into two - one for cloud apps and another for content - and design the tech stacks accordingly.
I'm fairly sure you're just conflating two separate opinions from many, many different people, and using your personal biases to crap on that conflation, so that you can bolster a fairly weak point.
Definitely true. But I've noticed that web applications are usually not awful design offenders.
An unusable webapp frustrates users and drives them off, but an informational page trying to be some kind of 1920's prediction of a futuristic interactive magazine is annoying at most. I can always figure out how to read the text, so I just put up with the stupid design.
