3 ms·
It's 2017. All modern browsers support JS and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it.
by scottmf 9y ago
It's 2017. All modern browsers support JS and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it.
- pjmlp 9y agoThere are more places to have a browser than on desktop computers, also not everyone wants to waste battery with JavaScript junk, the <blink/> tag of the 21st century.
- majewsky 9y agoIt's also not reasonable to require JS when you're just displaying static content.
- onion2k 9y agoAll modern browsers support JS While that's true it's not reasonable to assume the user has JS enabled. Ad-blocking plugins that also block JS are increasingly common. and it's no longer reasonable to expect all websites to work very well without it. The question should be "what does work very well" actually mean? For a closed application that requires the user to log in I don't really care. Users won't use the app if it doesn't work for them, so it's entirely up the developers to build something the users want. Talking about web applications is silly. For a public-facing website though, I would expect it to at least work without JS even if it doesn't necessarily present as good an experience as it would with JS (which is nothing new, it's just progressive enhancement). The problem is web sites that present an essentially a meaningless page (blank, no content, populated but broken, etc) to users who have JS disabled. That's where work needs to be done.
- HappyTypist 9y ago> That's where work needs to be done. Why? Instead of building for 0.5% of users that can just enable JavaScript, why shouldn't I invest the time into building a new feature, writing more unit tests, or writing an app for Windows Phone?
- onion2k 9y agoFor the same reason we build features in websites that work for blind people (aria tags everywhere), disabled people (accessible buttons), people who speak different languages (i18n), VIM users (GMail keyboard shortcuts), etc. We choose who we build for. If you want to ignore 0.5% of your users then that's your choice, but don't complain when you submit something to HN and get a page of responses saying it doesn't work.
- emodendroket 9y agoHumoring people who want to turn off JS is not really on the same level as making the page work for people with disabilities.
- emodendroket 9y ago> While that's true it's not reasonable to assume the user has JS enabled. Ad-blocking plugins that also block JS are increasingly common. What percentage of users do you think block JavaScript? I'd be utterly shocked if it were more than one or two percent.
- scaryclam 9y agoIt's 2017 and we should be over this "but it works on my machine!" attitude. It's completely reasonable to expect text and images to render without the need for the extra fluff.
- drdaeman 9y ago<script src="//cdn.example.org/few-jigabytes-blob-6d96270004515a0486bb7f76196a72b40c55a47f.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> import ReactDOM; const HowQuestion = (text) => { return (<p>How {text}?</p>); } const Comment = () => { const text = \ "the year justifies using Turing-complete programs" "to express what could be a simple static text document"; return <HowQuestion text={text}/>; }; const el = document.querySelector("#14507550 .comment"); ReactDOM.render(<Comment />, el); </script>