4 ms·
What is the motivation behind this mentality? Sure there are still webpages on the web, but there are also web apps. Why or even how would you expect a web app
by linkmotif 9y ago
What is the motivation behind this mentality? Sure there are still webpages on the web, but there are also web apps. Why or even how would you expect a web app to work without JS? Why would you expect developers to spend time writing a non JS version of their app? Before taking on this endeavor, I would prioritize native apps, optimizations of all sorts, adding features, etc. Unless your app is gmail, why would you ever spend time on creating an HTML/CGI based web app? I keep seeing these posts and I just don't get why anyone cares about this.
- carussell 9y agoWhich of the sites mentioned in the article would you expect JS to be necessary to use?
- tcfunk 9y agoI find JS requirements perfectly acceptable for maps, twitter, youtube, and netflix. Particularly maps.
- scaryclam 9y ago- Twitter, is quite literally, a text based feed. There's no reason for this not to work without JS - Netflix would depend on what you're doing. Much of it can work just fine as text, images and forms - Youtube has a lot of text and the videos could be played without JS if they wanted to bother (HTML5 ftw!) - Maps can also work OK without JS (just without the additional stuff, which is fine for progressive enhancement). Google "google maps without JS" for examples of what other people have done. I'm pretty sure you could also get around JS with pure HTML5 + CSS3, but I have no examples of it
- linkmotif 9y agoSo easy to write this in a comment but none of this is true. Twitter is not a text based feed. If it was, people would still expect it to be iteractive w/o full page reloads. Same goes for all your examples. DHTML happened, and for a reason. It's not going to unhappen.
- user15672 9y agoWow...just...wow! Look, I don't want to be mean, I understand you believe what you're saying, but, really, just no. You really do not understand how the things you're talking about work. For your own sake, go learn some more before jumping into comment here.
- dang 9y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive personal attacks (which this is) to HN. If you know more than someone else, teach them; then we all learn. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, that's fine, but then please just don't post anything. Commenting just to condescend about how ignorant someone is, instead of helping them, is lame.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- carussell 9y ago"Acceptable" is not the question. I asked for which sites you'd find JS to be necessary.
- cpburns2009 9y agoMaps would be severely limited without JavaScript. However, Twitter, YouTube, and Netflix could just as easily be implemented using standard HTML <form> and <video> tags without much loss of functionality.
- sedachv 9y agoWhy? You can use Youtube just fine with w3m and an external media player: http://francismurillo.github.io/2017-01-11-Using-vlc-With-w3m/ http://francismurillo.github.io/2017-01-11-Using-vlc-With-w3...
- niutech 9y agoThe content is the main thing users care about and it should be available as soon as possible even on a low-bandwidth connection, or a low-end device, or using a screen reader. This is what Progressive Enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement is about.
- linkmotif 9y agoProgressive enchancement is a rubbish paradigm because it's incredibly difficult to implement. React isometric rendering has made it slightly easier but it's still one of these catchphrases people throw around lightly until they try it.