3 ms·
You're conflating user and service designer here. The user has a problem (including but not limited to those listed) and so turns off JS. The service then has t
by richmarr 10y ago
You're conflating user and service designer here. The user has a problem (including but not limited to those listed) and so turns off JS. The service then has the problem that JS is disabled... no amount of SSL will help if your pages require JS to load.
Edit to clarify: The user turning off JS and using the service are likely to happen at entirely different times. If you browse with JS turned off, it's likely off by default and only enabled when needed (if at all).
- lmm 10y agoHow many users actually disable JS for these (or any other) reasons? Might it be cheaper to e.g. have a call center that trained to use the website on behalf of such users, rather than increasing the development costs of every government site?
- robin_reala 10y agoLast time we checked we get ~180k visits a month from people who specifically disable JS, ~810k further visits a month from people who don’t have JS available. So no, it’d be more expensive to have a call centre.
- asib 10y agoI don't like this idea because it sacrifices ease of use in order to make small savings during the development phase. You shouldn't subject your users to extra grate where possible, and I think this is especially true for a government site.
- richmarr 10y agoMy suspicion is that maintaining a call centre is more expensive than using progressive enhancement... but it's a fair question. You're also assuming that starting from a simple HTML implementation is more expensive than other methods. I'm not sure that's the case. As a rule, in terms of accessing public services at least, I'd be inclined to be very careful to make sure it was as accessible as possible.