3 ms·

Do you do web development professionally every day? If so, how long would you estimate you spend on making sure HTML-only pages render correctly? Do you ever d

Do you do web development professionally every day? If so, how long would you estimate you spend on making sure HTML-only pages render correctly? Do you ever do advanced sites where multiple actions exist on one page that can't be easily encapsulated in HTML? I ask because calling devs lazy for not backwards-checking their JS scripts is a bit much. So you want them to solve the problem they just solved, except this time, do it without some code assistance? That seems a bit unreasonable. For many sites these days it is acceptable and justifiable to run Javascript. That was not true in the early 2000's, but we are a long way from there.

jedrek 11y ago
Agreed. Neither Facebook nor YouTube run without JS enabled, which means that the vast majority of your users will never even consider turning it off.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Facebook and YouTube, as highly interactive applications, are not "most websites". Practically ever single blog, news site, store, business page, and the like have zero need for Javascript, and requiring it only makes your site look broken. The maybe better with Javascript, of course. While I haven't worked on websites in the last year or so, I have made websites professionally in the past for many years. Making a progressively enhanced store that works without Javascript in Rails 2/3 was really easy. > vast majority of your users will never even consider turning it off. How do you know this? Are you guessing? Are you relying on Javascript-based analytics and are therefore blind to people that disable Javascript? Do you have server logs that show how many people disable Javascript? Is you site broken without Javascript so this claim becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I ask this every time someone makes that claim, and have never gotten a response.
  - jand 11y ago
    > How do you know this? Are you guessing? > I ask this every time someone makes that claim, and have never gotten a response. Well, i am glad to help out. Have a look at [1] which presents data of 509.314 visitors. Isn't that great? Now you don't have to ask every time somebody makes that claim! [1] https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...

jedrek 11y ago

Agreed. Neither Facebook nor YouTube run without JS enabled, which means that the vast majority of your users will never even consider turning it off.

pdkl95 11y ago
Facebook and YouTube, as highly interactive applications, are not "most websites". Practically ever single blog, news site, store, business page, and the like have zero need for Javascript, and requiring it only makes your site look broken. The maybe better with Javascript, of course. While I haven't worked on websites in the last year or so, I have made websites professionally in the past for many years. Making a progressively enhanced store that works without Javascript in Rails 2/3 was really easy. > vast majority of your users will never even consider turning it off. How do you know this? Are you guessing? Are you relying on Javascript-based analytics and are therefore blind to people that disable Javascript? Do you have server logs that show how many people disable Javascript? Is you site broken without Javascript so this claim becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy? I ask this every time someone makes that claim, and have never gotten a response.
- jand 11y ago
  > How do you know this? Are you guessing? > I ask this every time someone makes that claim, and have never gotten a response. Well, i am glad to help out. Have a look at [1] which presents data of 509.314 visitors. Isn't that great? Now you don't have to ask every time somebody makes that claim! [1] https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...