3 ms·
It's acceptable to require javascript to provide functionality that cannot be achieved otherwise. It's acceptable to improve the user experience, what is known
by tremendo 16y ago
It's acceptable to require javascript to provide functionality that cannot be achieved otherwise. It's acceptable to improve the user experience, what is known as "progressive enhancement". But whatever _can_ be done without it, should be accessible (not require javascript). It's not acceptable to require it to replace basic functionality like links, navigation, scrolling, etc. in an inaccessible way.
The question that remains in my mind is… is it still acceptable to CamelCase javascript?
- alunny 16y agocamelCase is the de facto standard for JavaScript - all of the DOM APIs and major libraries use it. edit: oh, you probably mean the language name. Again, JavaScript is the correct formatting, even if it looks silly to most eyes.
- tremendo 16y agoIndeed it is. I just don't like it. But that's the standard.
- sant0sk1 16y ago> "It's not acceptable to require it to replace basic functionality like links, navigation, scrolling, etc. in an inaccessible way." This depends on what you're building. For websites, you are absolutely correct. For web applications, however, it is acceptable to use JavaScript for every jot & tittle. Take, for instance, 280 Slides; there is no graceful degradation for an application of that complexity & power. You either use it or you don't.
- masklinn 16y ago> For web applications, however, it is acceptable to use JavaScript for every jot & tittle. Fuck everything about that idea. And fuck web "application" which consider it cool to screw with my middle clics.