3 ms·

I'm not saying text content doesn't have its place, but what I am saying is that unless you're absolutely certain your users aren't going to be using JS (hint:

by iLoch 10y ago

I'm not saying text content doesn't have its place, but what I am saying is that unless you're absolutely certain your users aren't going to be using JS (hint: that's effectively no one) then it's just not worth your time to accommodate those users - especially when they optionally disable JS, AND you have to degrade the experience for the rest of your users in most practical applications. How often do you design features for 1% of your users?

kinlan 10y ago
A lot of it is about performance, if you need JS to fetch the content of your site after the SPA or Shell has loaded then you are incurring a significant amount of overhead for something that could have been streamed from the server and rendered as it was parsed by the browser.
- iLoch 10y ago
  Performance will come as the need develops. Yes it's faster to render something on the server right now, but that may not be the case in the near future. The concept of loading something from the server is also only accounting for a very specific use case. These days most websites will require more data from the server after the webpage has been loaded anyway. Server rendering simply wont make sense for some binary applications, such as games.
  - robin_reala 10y ago
    Playstation Now exists and is server rendering for games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now
mixedCase 10y ago
>AND you have to degrade the experience for the rest of your users in most practical applications I would say the opposite. The absolute majority of developers who insist on requiring JavaScript with no option to gracefully downgrade on pages that do not need it are the ones degrading the web experience.
alistproducer2 10y ago
From my experience having JS turned off, most sites render the text I want to read in a readable fashion sans JS.
robin_reala 10y ago
All the time, as 1.2% of my monthly users is 1.15 million people (hint: that’s effectively a lot of people). People will be accessing my content and using my services with Javascript deliberately off or situationally unavailable, and they need to be able to do so. It’s defensive design.

by iLoch 10y ago

kinlan 10y ago

A lot of it is about performance, if you need JS to fetch the content of your site after the SPA or Shell has loaded then you are incurring a significant amount of overhead for something that could have been streamed from the server and rendered as it was parsed by the browser.

iLoch 10y ago
Performance will come as the need develops. Yes it's faster to render something on the server right now, but that may not be the case in the near future. The concept of loading something from the server is also only accounting for a very specific use case. These days most websites will require more data from the server after the webpage has been loaded anyway. Server rendering simply wont make sense for some binary applications, such as games.
- robin_reala 10y ago
  Playstation Now exists and is server rendering for games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Now

mixedCase 10y ago

>AND you have to degrade the experience for the rest of your users in most practical applications I would say the opposite. The absolute majority of developers who insist on requiring JavaScript with no option to gracefully downgrade on pages that do not need it are the ones degrading the web experience.

alistproducer2 10y ago

From my experience having JS turned off, most sites render the text I want to read in a readable fashion sans JS.

robin_reala 10y ago

All the time, as 1.2% of my monthly users is 1.15 million people (hint: that’s effectively a lot of people). People will be accessing my content and using my services with Javascript deliberately off or situationally unavailable, and they need to be able to do so. It’s defensive design.