4 ms·
In my experience the cost (in terms of engineering time, if nothing else) of supporting degradable javascript is rarely worth it for a consumer facing startup.
by smanek 17y ago
In my experience the cost (in terms of engineering time, if nothing else) of supporting degradable javascript is rarely worth it for a consumer facing startup.
The extra "N" hours it takes to support something that a fraction of a percent of your users will need (which is only a handful of people for a small startup) could be better used on adding new features, marketing, adding polish, etc.
- nostrademons 17y agoFor an app like this, the cost is pretty negligible. First you build the site so that it's functional (but not necessarily all that polished) in straight HTML with no JavaScript. Then you add the JavaScript to make it even easier to use. It falls out naturally of your incremental development process (you do develop incrementally, right?) I've done a lot of the works-without-Javascript polishing for google.com, and it's very far from being our most expensive feature. It's mostly just a matter of remembering that you have HTML + CSS under all that JavaScript, and that the HTML does what you intend.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoThis. Maybe you can get away with useless HTML for a solidly non-technical audience, but I for one judge it more harshly than broken images and typos. It's not even hard, just a basic display of diligence and competence.