3 ms·

Wait, are you actually suggesting the complaint itself is invalid? That it makes sense for a website to fail to show plain text unless it can run some client-si

Wait, are you actually suggesting the complaint itself is invalid? That it makes sense for a website to fail to show plain text unless it can run some client-side JavaScript program???

dwaltrip 10y ago
It obviously isn't the optimal solution, but there are many factors at play here. A few I can think of: * The available tech stacks and tools for building and iterating on an online magazine with a rich UX that works on a variety of devices * The skillsets of the development team * The trends in app development (such as single page apps, which do offer certain advantages) * The propoprtion of people who disable javascript, especially in the target demographic (probably quite small) * Project budget * The desired features for the current and future versions of the project And so on. Of course, it would be much better to fall back to just displaying the text. But it isn't completely obvious that, in all cases, it is worth whatever additional cost to do so. Outside of the HN-bubble, there are very, very few people who disable javascript.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Yeah, it's obvious that there are trends in large picture stuff that drive this stupidity. I get that. It's still stupid. If you find yourself in a position where it's expensive to make sure text can display without JavaScript, then I'd agree that the situation is not your fault. Whoever finds themselves in that situation could rightly complain about how stupid other people are for letting it come to this. Sure, have a long discussion about all the complex challenges and even acknowledge (when it's true) that some stupid shit can get locked-in. Just don't try to deny that it's stupid. There's tons of examples of things in computers that are fundamentally tragically stupid but got locked in and we have to just accept them. We're not yet at that point with Javascript-lock-in, but maybe we're on that path. But even if the situation is hopeless, it's still stupid. It only makes it harder for people to make sense of things if you use excuses to try to deny the stupidity of stupid situations.
  - dwaltrip 10y ago
    You haven't addressed the core argument: The vast majority of people (more than 99%) don't disable javascript, so from the perspective of the key decision makers (project leads, managers, CTOs, etc), it's a complete non-issue. They consider the usage/non-usage of javascript to be largely irrelevant.
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      Sorry but appeal to popularity can justify a pragmatic decision not to DO anything about a stupid situation, but it doesn't make it non-stupid. Just accept saying "yeah, it's idiotic that Javascript is needed in X framework just to show text, but it's not a priority for most people to fix it" instead of trying to say that it isn't a shitty bug. It's a shitty bug that comes from a stupid bad design, but you can get away with it these days because it affects only a minority of people in practice. That's the simple truth here.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

Wait, are you actually suggesting the complaint itself is invalid? That it makes sense for a website to fail to show plain text unless it can run some client-side JavaScript program???

dwaltrip 10y ago

It obviously isn't the optimal solution, but there are many factors at play here. A few I can think of: * The available tech stacks and tools for building and iterating on an online magazine with a rich UX that works on a variety of devices * The skillsets of the development team * The trends in app development (such as single page apps, which do offer certain advantages) * The propoprtion of people who disable javascript, especially in the target demographic (probably quite small) * Project budget * The desired features for the current and future versions of the project And so on. Of course, it would be much better to fall back to just displaying the text. But it isn't completely obvious that, in all cases, it is worth whatever additional cost to do so. Outside of the HN-bubble, there are very, very few people who disable javascript.

quadrangle 10y ago
Yeah, it's obvious that there are trends in large picture stuff that drive this stupidity. I get that. It's still stupid. If you find yourself in a position where it's expensive to make sure text can display without JavaScript, then I'd agree that the situation is not your fault. Whoever finds themselves in that situation could rightly complain about how stupid other people are for letting it come to this. Sure, have a long discussion about all the complex challenges and even acknowledge (when it's true) that some stupid shit can get locked-in. Just don't try to deny that it's stupid. There's tons of examples of things in computers that are fundamentally tragically stupid but got locked in and we have to just accept them. We're not yet at that point with Javascript-lock-in, but maybe we're on that path. But even if the situation is hopeless, it's still stupid. It only makes it harder for people to make sense of things if you use excuses to try to deny the stupidity of stupid situations.
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  You haven't addressed the core argument: The vast majority of people (more than 99%) don't disable javascript, so from the perspective of the key decision makers (project leads, managers, CTOs, etc), it's a complete non-issue. They consider the usage/non-usage of javascript to be largely irrelevant.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Sorry but appeal to popularity can justify a pragmatic decision not to DO anything about a stupid situation, but it doesn't make it non-stupid. Just accept saying "yeah, it's idiotic that Javascript is needed in X framework just to show text, but it's not a priority for most people to fix it" instead of trying to say that it isn't a shitty bug. It's a shitty bug that comes from a stupid bad design, but you can get away with it these days because it affects only a minority of people in practice. That's the simple truth here.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]