3 ms·

What if the user uses noscript, or otherwise disable Javascript? Preventing cautious people from seeing the eye candy doesn't sound like a good idea.

• jufemaiz 16y ago
  Or if your script(s) end up on a blacklist (ala AdBlock)…
• huhtenberg 16y ago
  Users running noscript are typically prepared for any site to look broken or not work as expected. They also comprise a tiny majority of visitors, so for all practical intents and purposes accommodating their case is not really a development priority.
  • loup-vaillant 16y ago
    I understand your point of view. But you will agree that a CSS preprocessor in Javascript is a problem: (1) It's useless. Just pre-process the style sheets statically. No need for PHP, Ruby or any server side dynamic scripting whatsoever. It's simpler, and yields less requirements for everyone. (2) It exclude users. Not only the paranoid ones that run noscript and adBlock, but also the ones that just don't have Javascript like Dillo users. (Dillo is interesting for old, weak computers.) That's still a tiny minority, but they do exist. Something useless that exclude users clearly isn't the best tool for the job. Unless punishing noscript users is a feature… Now, of course javascript is more capable than (pre-processed) CSS alone. But the article didn't seem to use those capabilities.
  • nex3 16y ago
    Don't forget the accessibility considerations: screenreaders typically don't run Javascript either.
    • loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Yes, but screen readers don't care about CSS either.