5 ms·
Just because it's the default doesn't make it easiest nor does it make sense as the default necessarily, it's just the default because that's how he web started
by ecnahc515 10y ago
Just because it's the default doesn't make it easiest nor does it make sense as the default necessarily, it's just the default because that's how he web started. I'm not saying we should skip progressive enhancement but there's truth to it being more work (when compared to how easy we can do things without it using JS only), regardless of how the web was originally designed to work.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago"Just because it's the default doesn't make it easiest nor does it make sense as the default necessarily" I used to throw them together in Frontpage or Dreamweaver with a few optional scripts. Scripts for things like page counters or menus I just cut and pasted off dynamicdrive.com followed by tests in several browsers. Backend handled forms and such. Worked on every browser, loaded up fast on dialup, and everyone knew what my HTML/CSS code did without training. Can't say that about most of these sites and frameworks these days. So, I'd say it's easiest and a sensible default. To be clear, I'm not critiquing complex, web applications that truly need advanced tooling client-side. I'm talking about 90+% of what's out there that just publishes content with minimal dynamic elements needed.
- robin_reala 10y agoIt’s easy to knock something together with JS. It’s very difficult to make it work well, certainly in our experience harder than having reasonable fallbacks.