> you learn that the benefit in question is actually that the method is less useful than conventional means. … hope for … an actually useful feature of the unconventional method in question.
People write these things, and use these methods, specifically because they don't conceive of usefulness the same way you do.
In this case, the justification offered doesn't mention all the various keybinds that have been pushed down to the "how" section. But clearly the simplicity is a feature:
> D will download images locally, b goes back a page, a will save bookmarks. All of this makes browsing in eww truly enjoyable.
The point is the same as usual for TUIs: you don't have to switch over to the mouse and hunt out a button, as the necessary key is always literally at hand.
People who find this sort of thing "truly enjoyable" (what clearer statement is there of featurefulness!) commonly take it for granted and don't explain the virtues of it very well. That sort of explanation is found in think pieces about TUI design more generally.
TFA describes a goal of avoiding distraction. That is not at all the same thing as "inconvenience and impracticality". Clearly the author finds these keybinds quite convenient and practical. It's just that they don't cover a bunch of web interactions that you perhaps value, but the author doesn't.
[−]AndrewKemendo · 2026-11-15 Sun 17:32 UTC ·
link
This is why I find the whole emacs conversation confusing
You’ll have people who demonstrate their whole set up and interactions and hot keys and shortcuts and everything and then when you say OK well why would you do it like that it all boils down to:
“This extremely precise implementation works for only me and my specific workflow”
I found that it’s almost more useful to think about emacs users showing off their org mode bindings are basically like Warhammer players showing off their painted figurines
You mischaracterise me. I am an Emacs user and I use qutebrowser as my web browser, which uses Vi-like bindings and Python configuration. When forced by circumstance to use other browsers, I use browser extensions to add Vi-like bindings. I find it extremely efficient and enjoyable.
The keybindings aren't mentioned in the "Why?" section of this blog post, and clearly aren't the point of the post. You can get extensions to add Emacs bindings to full-featured browsers, and there's even the Nyxt browser which has Emacs keybinds and Lisp configuration.
The core reason listed in this blogpost for browsing this way is the very fact that it is less featureful and less convenient. As someone who uses Emacs, I know that eww isn't as convenient as a fully-fledged web browser and I know that sometimes the hard way of doing things can be beneficial. I found this blog post disappointing because it doesn't afford you any new information, nor tell anyone about any actually useful features about browsing in eww.
People write these things, and use these methods, specifically because they don't conceive of usefulness the same way you do.
In this case, the justification offered doesn't mention all the various keybinds that have been pushed down to the "how" section. But clearly the simplicity is a feature:
> D will download images locally, b goes back a page, a will save bookmarks. All of this makes browsing in eww truly enjoyable.
The point is the same as usual for TUIs: you don't have to switch over to the mouse and hunt out a button, as the necessary key is always literally at hand.
People who find this sort of thing "truly enjoyable" (what clearer statement is there of featurefulness!) commonly take it for granted and don't explain the virtues of it very well. That sort of explanation is found in think pieces about TUI design more generally.
TFA describes a goal of avoiding distraction. That is not at all the same thing as "inconvenience and impracticality". Clearly the author finds these keybinds quite convenient and practical. It's just that they don't cover a bunch of web interactions that you perhaps value, but the author doesn't.
You’ll have people who demonstrate their whole set up and interactions and hot keys and shortcuts and everything and then when you say OK well why would you do it like that it all boils down to:
“This extremely precise implementation works for only me and my specific workflow”
I found that it’s almost more useful to think about emacs users showing off their org mode bindings are basically like Warhammer players showing off their painted figurines
That's their value.
The keybindings aren't mentioned in the "Why?" section of this blog post, and clearly aren't the point of the post. You can get extensions to add Emacs bindings to full-featured browsers, and there's even the Nyxt browser which has Emacs keybinds and Lisp configuration.
The core reason listed in this blogpost for browsing this way is the very fact that it is less featureful and less convenient. As someone who uses Emacs, I know that eww isn't as convenient as a fully-fledged web browser and I know that sometimes the hard way of doing things can be beneficial. I found this blog post disappointing because it doesn't afford you any new information, nor tell anyone about any actually useful features about browsing in eww.