3 ms·

Oh man, that's one of those things with web that sucks you gotta factor it in. I don't know the percentage but say on average, 70% of a basic web gets most of t

by ge96 10y ago

Oh man, that's one of those things with web that sucks you gotta factor it in. I don't know the percentage but say on average, 70% of a basic web gets most of the users. Then you have to factor in blind users, non-javascript, internet explorer... Ahhh It bothers me because I know it's something to address. So regarding non-javascript, most interfaces are built with JavaScript so what percentage are you addressing? I've only had the non-javascript come up personally regarding using Tor. I don't know/use Tor much. I don't ever put <noscript> alerts in ahhh I should though. I use AdBlock too, not sure if that affects what the desired end-result of non-javascript

the8472 10y ago
some sites also have silly JS breakage when you block 3rd-party domains while allowing same-origin requests. They blindly assume that stuff loaded successfully.
- edraferi 10y ago
  > some sites also have silly JS breakage when you block 3rd-party domains while allowing same-origin requests. They blindly assume that stuff loaded successfully. Oh yeah, that's the worst. I use uBlock Origin to block third party JS by default, then selectively enable domains I trust (mostly CDN services). This is usually a happy medium between raw and noscript, but it definitely breaks a lot of pages.
  - patates 10y ago
    I have uMatrix installed just for that, didn't know uBlock origin could also block third party scripts. Oh well, I also love to block all cookies and only allow first party cookies on sites that I've an account with.
nothrabannosir 10y ago
I was talking about myself, in this case. Quite selfish, unlike your comment :) I use noscript and disabled JS on iOS Safari, for battery life and security. Not a fanatic noscript user at all, it just seems slightly less bad than full js at this point. Graceful degradation is a better choice than <noscript> tags, where possible. Which, for <img>, it is. thanks for considering the minority, even if it doesn't pan out :)
- ge96 10y ago
  I don't know if it's a futile battle regarding accessibility. I guess if you're a big enough company/group you'd have experts in that area. Hmm yeah I guess I'm not as up to date with mobile(the stuff you mentioned)

by ge96 10y ago

the8472 10y ago

some sites also have silly JS breakage when you block 3rd-party domains while allowing same-origin requests. They blindly assume that stuff loaded successfully.

edraferi 10y ago
> some sites also have silly JS breakage when you block 3rd-party domains while allowing same-origin requests. They blindly assume that stuff loaded successfully. Oh yeah, that's the worst. I use uBlock Origin to block third party JS by default, then selectively enable domains I trust (mostly CDN services). This is usually a happy medium between raw and noscript, but it definitely breaks a lot of pages.
- patates 10y ago
  I have uMatrix installed just for that, didn't know uBlock origin could also block third party scripts. Oh well, I also love to block all cookies and only allow first party cookies on sites that I've an account with.

nothrabannosir 10y ago

I was talking about myself, in this case. Quite selfish, unlike your comment :) I use noscript and disabled JS on iOS Safari, for battery life and security. Not a fanatic noscript user at all, it just seems slightly less bad than full js at this point. Graceful degradation is a better choice than <noscript> tags, where possible. Which, for <img>, it is. thanks for considering the minority, even if it doesn't pan out :)

ge96 10y ago
I don't know if it's a futile battle regarding accessibility. I guess if you're a big enough company/group you'd have experts in that area. Hmm yeah I guess I'm not as up to date with mobile(the stuff you mentioned)