2 ms·
It's still better to have a slightly degraded user experience for your non-JavaScript users, rather than a complete site failure I would suggest that a company
by kls 16y ago
It's still better to have a slightly degraded user experience for your non-JavaScript users, rather than a complete site failure
I would suggest that a company look at their web analytical and make that decision. I know that for most of my clients their trends show less than 1% for JavaScript disabled. This, weighed against maintaining a degrading site programming model, to support 1%, did not make economic sense, given that those dollars could be used for multilingual translation, (a far larger segment).
This is really a question that is best answered by looking at your sites trends. For us it made more economic sense to do a JavaScript detect and if they did not have it enabled pop a page suggesting FF, Safari or Chrome.
- carussell 16y agoI would suggest that a company look at their web analytical and make that decision. I know that for most of my clients their trends show less than 1% for JavaScript disabled. If you do take this approach, remember to be a good scientist by making sure you respect the control aspect of the scientific method. Specifically, if you already require JavaScript for your site, you should not even venture to extrapolate an answer, even if you think you're going about it in a reasonable way. I recently had a conversation (although it was less like a conversation and more like a few frustrated, snarky comments from me) with a developer who claimed that 99% of his users browsed his page with at least 1024 pixels. Even ignoring for the moment the issue of screen width not being the same as the size of the browser window on the screen, I asked why he would expect otherwise from users of a web site which required that kind of width before it begins to invoke frustrating things like horizontal scrolling.