4 ms·

That is like saying "most of our customers use the drive thru, so we will COMPLETELY CLOSE our restaurant to foot traffic". A hybrid approach is best, especial

That is like saying "most of our customers use the drive thru, so we will COMPLETELY CLOSE our restaurant to foot traffic". A hybrid approach is best, especially when this article is literally text and some photos.

noir_lord 9y ago
I looked, figures I can find for the UK show that 98.7% of people have javascript enabled. If I ran a restaurant and 98.7% of my revenue came from the drive through I'd seriously consider shutting the foot traffic part down.
- komali2 9y ago
  Yea but having a hybrid doesn't just take care of that 1.3%, it tremendously helps those that are blind [1], the huge smear with different versions of JS, those that come in on mobile with JS enabled and then flick it off because your site broke for their random configuration of screen size and mobile browser, etc. Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps. Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled. [1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-screen-readers-users-in-usa https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-s...
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    Accessibility is way more important (to me) than noJS. Given infinite resources I'd do all three but the with JS experience and accessibility matters more (to me).
    - pferde 9y ago
      Nobody is asking any miraculous things. Merely a dump of article contents without any formatting effort on webdesigner's part would do. Us "nojs vegans" aren't picky. Don't even need pictures, just the meat (I'm sure a pun of some sort could be made here) of the page. I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.
      - noir_lord 9y ago
        > your javascript crutch became widely available. Bit harsh, my personal blog has zero javascript.
        pferde 9y ago
        Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal "your" aimed at you specifically, but rather than a general one.
        noir_lord 9y ago
        No worries. For what it's worth I think 2Mb of JS to load text and picture is bonkers as well.
  - salesguy222 9y ago
    I cannot agree more with this comment. Too bad that others feel the need to wrap text and photos in JS, to the detriment of many billions of Internet users out there who aren't on fast connections and powerful machines.

noir_lord 9y ago

I looked, figures I can find for the UK show that 98.7% of people have javascript enabled. If I ran a restaurant and 98.7% of my revenue came from the drive through I'd seriously consider shutting the foot traffic part down.

komali2 9y ago
Yea but having a hybrid doesn't just take care of that 1.3%, it tremendously helps those that are blind [1], the huge smear with different versions of JS, those that come in on mobile with JS enabled and then flick it off because your site broke for their random configuration of screen size and mobile browser, etc. Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps. Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled. [1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-screen-readers-users-in-usa https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-s...
- noir_lord 9y ago
  Accessibility is way more important (to me) than noJS. Given infinite resources I'd do all three but the with JS experience and accessibility matters more (to me).
  - pferde 9y ago
    Nobody is asking any miraculous things. Merely a dump of article contents without any formatting effort on webdesigner's part would do. Us "nojs vegans" aren't picky. Don't even need pictures, just the meat (I'm sure a pun of some sort could be made here) of the page. I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.
    - noir_lord 9y ago
      > your javascript crutch became widely available. Bit harsh, my personal blog has zero javascript.
      - pferde 9y ago
        Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a personal "your" aimed at you specifically, but rather than a general one.
        noir_lord 9y ago
        No worries. For what it's worth I think 2Mb of JS to load text and picture is bonkers as well.
- salesguy222 9y ago
  I cannot agree more with this comment. Too bad that others feel the need to wrap text and photos in JS, to the detriment of many billions of Internet users out there who aren't on fast connections and powerful machines.