At its core, client-side rendering (CSR) is akin to Ikea furniture—the webpage is built at home, right inside your browser. Simply put, when using websites powered by CSR, you download an almost bare-bones HTML document from the server which gets spruced up directly in the user’s browser via JavaScript.
The brilliance and appeal of this approach lie within its performance optimizations and user experience enhancements. While interacting with a page or submitting a form on a CSR-enabled site, users won’t trigger complete page reloads, as each request makes an asynchronous call that only updates part of a page instead.
This helps avoid waiting for server responses and, in turn, leads to seamless navigation—increasing engagement rates and eventually ROI opportunities. As a matter of fact, CSR is closely related to another well-known acronym SPA (single page applications). Since the webpage is being dynamically built by the client, it can unload and load new info, creating a fast and very intuitive experience.
Notable brands like Facebook and Google have effectively employed CSR and are clear examples of why and how this paradigm works. So, why does it seem that it’s going out of fashion? Why is it slowly being replaced by server-side rendering (SSR)? Well, that’s what we are going to talk about today.
User Experience: How Rendering Impacts Site Interactivity
In the dynamic world of software development services, user experience (UX) has become a cornerstone for business success. Rendering is essentially the process by which an application or website’s design code is translated into a visual display that users interact with. The quality of this rendering directly influences how engaging and interactive a website becomes—ultimately determining whether visitors stay on your platform or bounce off to competitors.
The speed at which pages render significantly impacts user engagement. Slow loading times lead to high bounce rates, as today’s tech-savvy consumers expect instant gratification when browsing online. Research shows that 53% of mobile site visits are abandoned if pages take longer than three seconds to load—highlighting just how critical swift rendering is in maintaining user interest.
To ensure optimal performance, developers often use SSR, CSR, or a hybrid approach known as universal/isomorphic rendering (we’ll talk about it a bit later). Each method has its pros and cons concerning SEO optimization, initial load time, interactivity speed, scalability, and maintainability, among other factors.
SSR provides an immediate view of the webpage because it sends fully populated HTML files from the server to the browser, but may compromise on page interactivity until all JavaScript loads completely. Conversely, CSR offers faster interaction speeds once loaded, since JavaScript runs directly in the client’s browser, but suffers from slower initial load times due to empty HTML sent while waiting for JavaScript execution.
Incorporating modern technologies like progressive web apps (PWAs) can help optimize both SSR and CSR approaches by enabling websites to function more like native apps, offering offline functionality and enhancing the overall user experience (UX), regardless of network conditions, thus ensuring customer retention even under adverse situations.
But enough about users—let’s talk about rendering.
What Is SSR?
At its core, SSR involves generating the server rendered html on the server before it’s sent to both the client—the end-user’s browser. This server side rendering process happens every time there’s a page request made by an end-user. In essence, when someone types in or clicks your site URL from their device, each requested web page has already been a fully rendered html page prepared at elite servers scattered around different regions globally.
Contrary to perceptions that such an approach may be resource-intensive, server side rendering frameworks are designed to simplify actions performed by clients while leveraging the processing capabilities of servers efficiently. This minimizes frequent server requests which can be burdensome especially on a slow internet connection.
A fundamental advantage derived from SSR lies in its first meaningful paint (FMP) timings—a performance metric referring to how fast critical source content appears for users upon loading a html file. With pre-rendered pages being delivered straight away, users are immediately engrossed in the user interface, thereby mitigating chances of sudden bounce-offs due to perceived lags—which holds paramount importance for high-traffic platforms aiming for increased metrics concerning customer retention and engagement ratios.
But wait, there is more! One of the biggest headaches for web developers with CSR is that since the initial page is almost barebones, search engine bots like those used by Google sometimes fail to grab the content from the webpage, which, as you might expect, is a death sentence for SEO. In fact, this is the very reason why SSR, an open source framework, has grown in popularity—it has finally solved one of the biggest headaches of SPAs.
At first glance, servers might not seem like the most glamorous component of your digital ecosystem—an unseen force humming away backstage while developers bask in the spotlight playing with CSS animations or experimenting with AR/VR applications.
However, imagine having an expertly choreographed ballet performance without any accompanying music—the nuance and depth will be markedly diminished. That’s precisely the void that a lackluster approach to understanding servers would create within your business model.
SSR operates much like an orchestra conductor responsible for managing symphonies on visitor requests, baton strokes on our websites. These pieces of code help paint browser screens with processed server side rendering solutions well before they hit user devices—think about completing puzzle pieces ahead of time so end-users spend less time waiting.
The SSR solution interprets every request made by browsers over an HTTP protocol network and delivers finished html pages straight to the user. This offloads the need to parse client side JavaScript library and the cumbersome work of processing server side javascript. Since we no longer depend on the client side javascript, we have a lot more control over our website or app, but that obviously comes with a cost.
Serving a couple hundred users is no problem for a small server, but what if you are serving millions of users? Remember that some of the biggest websites get hundreds of millions of users per day—suddenly, all those requests are asking our servers “Hey, please, create a view.” If just requesting information is enough to bring a site down, having to render the page of millions of users is a tall order.
Behind the Scenes: The Mechanics of Client-Side Rendering
CSR emerged as a highly effective strategy for web developers, primarily due to its ability to deliver interactive and streamlined user experiences.
The first step toward comprehending CSR is acknowledging that all major actions occur within your browser. Unlike server-side processes, where computations take place on powerful servers before delivering static HTML to browsers, CSR leverages an Open Source JavaScript framework for powering these engines: Chrome’s V8 or Firefox’s Spidermonkey, for example.
Yes, client-side rendered websites have an initial load cost relatively larger than their server-rendered counterparts because they need to download more assets, including a single JavaScript file, instead of just single-page documents. But bear in mind that this is only once; as the information is cached on our user’s hardware, subsequent navigation becomes smoother and faster, providing a seamless browsing experience—precisely what today’s impatient user demands!
Traditionally with CSR, data fetching happens through APIs after initial JavaScript downloads—enabling asynchronous data loading and updating parts independently rather than reloading whole pages—a significant enhancement over the old way of doing things. And to help improve the sharing of web content across the web, developers can also implement FaceBook’s Open Graph protocol for a better representation on social media platforms (hey, Django and WordPress, I’m looking at you).
As we mentioned before, one could argue that issues with SEO were a weak point for CSRs because search engines had trouble interpreting JavaScript code effectively. However, with advancements and the integration of reusable UI components, this has eased somewhat. Googlebot, for instance, is now being able to “read” JavaScript-dependent types. It’s not a perfect solution by any metric—the more creative you get with your JavaScript, the more likely you are condemning your site to SEO hell. But it’s a lot better than it was a few years ago.
Given its heavy reliance on local resources (i.e., users’ browsers), advanced interactivity features make CSRs ideal for web applications requiring constant interactions, like real-time updates or animations, typical scenarios including SPAs, post-first-render analytics sites, e-commerce platforms with plenty of product detailing options, etc.
Server-Side Rendering Pros and Cons
When it comes to a web development company, choosing between SSR and CSR can often feel like navigating through a labyrinth. However, we will try to delve into the intricacies of both approaches and see if we can help you figure out which one fits you best.
Accessibility to Search Engines—An Edge over CSR
One undeniable advantage that SSR has over its counterpart is its excellent accessibility for search engine crawlers. This means Googlebot or Bingbot can quickly index your content, as search engines receive a fully rendered page from the server. Hence, if you’re aiming for an outstanding SEO performance, then SSR might tick that box convincingly.
Shielded User Experience—Catering First Contentful Paint
Users today are notoriously impatient when it comes to slow websites; they want their information right there and then. With SSR in play, the user won’t be staring at a blank screen until all scripts get loaded—a pitfall common in CSR—as servers dispatch HTML ready for display, instantly achieving what’s known as “the first contentful paint” faster.
An Economical Option for Users
Think about end-users with low-end devices or those suffering from sub-par internet connectivity. By separating heavy-lifting operations into readily-renderable components on the server side rather than entirely outsourcing them onto clients’ machines as done by CSR, we ensure fair user experience regardless of device capabilities without breaking their data banks!
The Flipside…
However virtuous these advantages sound though, no technology is perfect—and neither is SSR—hence, it calls out some consideration-worthy downsides alongside its positives:
Server Load Concerns—A Possible Strain on Performance?
In terms of operating architecture—specifically load-wise—SSRs come with extra pressure on servers and can have a deep impact on loading speeds and costs. Cloud-based services can dynamically scale to cope with the issue, but this in turn means that you have to be very careful with your cost structure.
Handling Frequent Updates
Websites needing continual dynamic updates may see challenges in an SSR environment because each fresh interaction demands a new HTML fetched from the server. Reloading pages will hamper smooth real-time interactivity, something that is crucial on sites like live auction portals or fantasy sports gaming applications.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Evaluating Client-Side Rendering
To begin, let’s unveil the curtain on some aspects that make client-side rendering so attractive.
Dynamic Interaction
One key aspect of CSR is its capacity for more dynamic user interaction compared with server-rendered applications. As event-based actions are processed quicker within a user’s browser than making round trips back to the server, visitors enjoy a remarkably seamless and fluid browsing experience.
Reduced Server Load
With computational tasks unloaded onto clients’ devices rather than resting solely on servers, this results in lower server load, which could potentially decrease operational costs associated with maintaining high-performance servers.
Scalability Considerations
Because of reduced dependency on servers for rendering pages due to shifting computations directly onto clients’ browsers, scalability complexities, particularly during peak visitation periods, might be mitigated over time, thus providing opportunities for cost savings while improving website robustness.
The Flipside…
SEO Complications
Not all search engine crawlers are accustomed, or well enough adapted, to index sites implemented around complex JavaScript structures extensively used in client-side rendered architectures; this could compromise web page visibility, leading to poor organic discovery rates.
Performance Caveats
While conversations about loading speeds often lean toward how quickly static elements appear (which indeed tends to be faster due to initial lightweight server responses), when we take into account other factors like the total time required before a full interactivity-enabled web page renders—the picture isn’t equally as pretty. Thanks to a heavier reliance on network conditions and the user’s computation capabilities, post-initial-load content updates can actually become a sore point for users.
Security and Vulnerability
Unfortunately, having the client manage so much can be a cybersecurity risk. To be fair, this is not really an issue that you should be worried about if your developers have a good understanding of cybersecurity practices. But do keep in mind that mistakes do happen and that sometimes the library we use in our projects may share more data than we intended. In these cases, the information is there for anyone to see.
What Is This about Isomorphic JavaScript?
SSR with Isomorphic Javascript or universal rendering is a technique that combines the best of both worlds: the speed of SSR and the interactivity of CSR.
With universal rendering, the page is first rendered on the server, then a small JavaScript file is sent to the browser to finish rendering the page. This gives you the speed of SSR, because the browser doesn’t have to do any work to render the initial page, and the interactivity of CSR, because the browser can update the page without having to reload the entire page.
Benefits of Universal Rendering:
- Faster Initial Load Times: The page is rendered on the server before it is sent to the browser, so it can load instantly.
- Better SEO: SSR pages are more easily indexed by search engines, which can help improve your website’s search ranking.
- More Interactivity: The browser can update the page without having to reload the entire page, which can improve the user experience.
- More Flexibility: You can use any JavaScript framework to render the page, both on the server and in the browser.
Drawbacks of Universal Rendering:
- More Complex To Implement: Universal rendering is more complex to implement than either SSR or CSR.
- Can Be Slower for Subsequent Page Loads: Once the initial page is loaded, subsequent page loads will be slower than with CSR, because the browser will have to download the JavaScript file from the server.
Overall, universal rendering is a good choice for websites that need to be both fast and SEO-friendly. If you are willing to put in the extra effort to implement it, universal rendering can give you the best of both worlds.
Here are some examples of websites that use universal rendering:
- Google Search: Google Search uses universal rendering to ensure that the search results page loads quickly for users with slow internet connections.
- Twitter: Twitter uses universal rendering to make sure that tweets load instantly for users.
- Medium: Medium uses universal rendering to provide a smooth and interactive reading experience.
If you are considering using universal rendering for your website, there are a few things you need to keep in mind:
- Make Sure Your Server Is Fast Enough: The server needs to be able to render the page quickly so that it can load instantly for users.
- Use a Good JavaScript Framework: The JavaScript framework you use should be well-optimized for performance.
- Test Your Website Thoroughly: Make sure that your website works properly with universal rendering before you deploy it to production.
Example Frameworks for Universal Rendering
While any framework could potentially be used by a developer to create a universal rendering page, we’ve seen a rise in extremely powerful and friendly frameworks that are changing the landscape of web development.
React.JS: A Pioneer in Component-Based Architecture
React.js has reshaped the landscape of modern web development with its component-centric philosophy. Alongside this, server-side rendering in React enhances the performance and SEO of applications. Designed for building rich user interfaces, it introduces a virtual DOM that ensures efficient updates and rendering.
This framework’s focus on reusable components streamlines code and speeds up development. React’s widespread adoption by both tech giants and startups highlights its significance in tech discussions.
Next.JS: Robustness Coupled with Versatility
Next.js is what a framework should strive to be: It’s flexible, well-documented, and offers a plethora of approaches for deploying our web pages.
Next.js stands out due to its automatic code-splitting feature—resulting in faster page loads—which directly impacts user engagement rates positively—a critical metric often discussed during boardroom meetings!
Svelte: Future-Ready Approach
Svelte takes a future-ready approach toward building responsive web applications. It compiles your code into tiny standalone JavaScript modules at build time rather than interpreting it at runtime, providing significant speed advantages crucial for staying competitive in today’s fast-paced market scenario.
Fresh: Deno’s answer
For those who are ready to leave NodeJS behind, Deno is a powerful runtime created by the same developer as NodeJS, and Fresh is its answer to the modern JavaScript web frameworks, with a minimalist take and built for Typescript. Fresh might be a newcomer, but it has the potential to grow and take the world by storm.
I would love to give a definitive statement on which approach you should adopt. But the reality of JavaScript development services is that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer. Each project stands as its own unique set of requirements. Therefore, our most valuable advice is to deliberate thoughtfully, informed by what we’ve discussed thus far. Which solution aligns best with you, your project, and your team? No matter your choice, rest assured that a myriad of tools and solutions are available to bolster your development journey.
If you enjoyed this, be sure to check out our other web development articles.
