5 ms·

This. Pointing out lack of no-javascript support is tantamount to starting every dinner conversation with "I'm a vegetarian". It's OK to turn javascript off but

by berdon 9y ago

This. Pointing out lack of no-javascript support is tantamount to starting every dinner conversation with "I'm a vegetarian". It's OK to turn javascript off but we've long since left the world where javascript wasn't the norm.

logfromblammo 9y ago
It is not okay to design your site such that it requires permission to use browser features that are not necessary for the presentation. Asking for script permission to display text is as bad as asking for microphone permission for an app that does not use audio. Presentation of text has always been possible in HTML without the use of script. You don't need script permission. Don't ask for it. Don't require it. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean we should ever stop complaining about it (bandwagon fallacy). It is wrong. The people who do it are doing it wrong. They may not be aware of it, so someone needs to mention it. Every time.
- berdon 9y ago
  You're building a strawman's narrative here. This website uses javascript for _far_ more than displaying text. Additionally, "requires permission to use browser features that are not necessary for the presentation" is deflective and misleading. Your monitor isn't necessary for presentation either - you could print out the website.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    You are absolutely correct. The monitor is not necessary. Only the text characters are necessary. They might never appear on any screen. They might be converted to audio by a screen reader, or rendered on a Braille display. They might be fed into a webcrawler robot to be indexed. Any additional features also implemented in script are not relevant to the delivery of the text. Whatever else the javascript may do, it is not necessary to transmit text. The text is all I care about. Other people might want additional bells and whistles, but I just want the human-readable text. The web is a consumer's medium. You cannot mandate that anyone experience the content you send them in any particular way. Whatever it is that you send may be blocked, filtered, or modified before ever reaching human eyes. It is therefore polite to provide many options for the manner in which users may experience your content, such as by providing graceful degradation all the way down to someone opening up a raw telnet connection to port 80 and typing in their HTTP request by hand. (Have you ever done that? I have.) Remote transmission of alphabet characters has been a part of human networking since 1793. If I ask a question using an optical semaphore tower, I don't want your response to be sending a minstrel to me in person, with a bunch of hand puppets and marionettes to act out the answer.
    - berdon 9y ago
      That's like saying paint isn't necessary for an artist to convey their art. You only want pencil and that's all that should be used. You're welcome to want text on a website but the website creator is welcome to do as they please. I'd point back to my origin example: a vegetarian is fine excluding beef from their diet but no one should have to listen to them blather about it.
      - logfromblammo 9y ago
        More like I want to see a painting at a traveling exhibit, and I'm not allowed inside the gallery where it is being held unless I agree to sit through a 2 hour "behind the art" video first. The website creator is welcome to do as they please, but there is such as a thing as abusing one's audience. Your analogy is not apt. The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter. They get the beef whether they want it or not. They can't get the kitchen to give them the meal they want without also giving them beef. The cooks are being intentionally provocative to their vegetarian guests. They are certainly able to do so in their own restaurant, but it is a dick move, and nobody should tolerate it, whether they are vegetarian or not.
        berdon 9y ago
        "The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter." No - you accessed the website with a personal expectation that the author adhered to your standards. The web is free, developers and designers can do what they want. If it's not what you want then go somewhere else. Similarly, the vegetarian ordered "the special" and was befuddled when they received a dish with meat. There was no expectation of a vegetarian dish except by the vegetarian.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        V: Can I get a hamburger, but without the beef patty? C: No. V: What? Why not? C: My artistic vision demands that the meat be present. V: (irritated) Fine. I'll have the hamburger. C: Here you go. V: <throws meat patty into the trash> C: That's not allowed! Wharrgarbl! This isn't a matter of "can I substitute lobster tails for the fries?". You can't force someone to consume something they don't want just because that's the way you want it. Clearly, it is well within the capabilities of the cook to make a regular hamburger and not put the meat into it in the first place. Bundling up the entire sandwich as one unit may be more convenient for the cook, but it might be irritating for the customers, and the cook's business is driven by customers. In the context of this specific website, the cook is grinding the meat up with the vegetables, in such a way that it is needlessly difficult to throw away the meat. It may not be intentionally hostile to vegetarians, but it does show a careless disregard to anyone that doesn't like their sandwich the only way the cook makes it.

by berdon 9y ago

logfromblammo 9y ago

It is not okay to design your site such that it requires permission to use browser features that are not necessary for the presentation. Asking for script permission to display text is as bad as asking for microphone permission for an app that does not use audio. Presentation of text has always been possible in HTML without the use of script. You don't need script permission. Don't ask for it. Don't require it. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean we should ever stop complaining about it (bandwagon fallacy). It is wrong. The people who do it are doing it wrong. They may not be aware of it, so someone needs to mention it. Every time.

berdon 9y ago
You're building a strawman's narrative here. This website uses javascript for _far_ more than displaying text. Additionally, "requires permission to use browser features that are not necessary for the presentation" is deflective and misleading. Your monitor isn't necessary for presentation either - you could print out the website.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  You are absolutely correct. The monitor is not necessary. Only the text characters are necessary. They might never appear on any screen. They might be converted to audio by a screen reader, or rendered on a Braille display. They might be fed into a webcrawler robot to be indexed. Any additional features also implemented in script are not relevant to the delivery of the text. Whatever else the javascript may do, it is not necessary to transmit text. The text is all I care about. Other people might want additional bells and whistles, but I just want the human-readable text. The web is a consumer's medium. You cannot mandate that anyone experience the content you send them in any particular way. Whatever it is that you send may be blocked, filtered, or modified before ever reaching human eyes. It is therefore polite to provide many options for the manner in which users may experience your content, such as by providing graceful degradation all the way down to someone opening up a raw telnet connection to port 80 and typing in their HTTP request by hand. (Have you ever done that? I have.) Remote transmission of alphabet characters has been a part of human networking since 1793. If I ask a question using an optical semaphore tower, I don't want your response to be sending a minstrel to me in person, with a bunch of hand puppets and marionettes to act out the answer.
  - berdon 9y ago
    That's like saying paint isn't necessary for an artist to convey their art. You only want pencil and that's all that should be used. You're welcome to want text on a website but the website creator is welcome to do as they please. I'd point back to my origin example: a vegetarian is fine excluding beef from their diet but no one should have to listen to them blather about it.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      More like I want to see a painting at a traveling exhibit, and I'm not allowed inside the gallery where it is being held unless I agree to sit through a 2 hour "behind the art" video first. The website creator is welcome to do as they please, but there is such as a thing as abusing one's audience. Your analogy is not apt. The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter. They get the beef whether they want it or not. They can't get the kitchen to give them the meal they want without also giving them beef. The cooks are being intentionally provocative to their vegetarian guests. They are certainly able to do so in their own restaurant, but it is a dick move, and nobody should tolerate it, whether they are vegetarian or not.
      - berdon 9y ago
        "The vegetarian is being served beef even though they ordered a vegetarian entree from the waiter." No - you accessed the website with a personal expectation that the author adhered to your standards. The web is free, developers and designers can do what they want. If it's not what you want then go somewhere else. Similarly, the vegetarian ordered "the special" and was befuddled when they received a dish with meat. There was no expectation of a vegetarian dish except by the vegetarian.
        logfromblammo 9y ago
        V: Can I get a hamburger, but without the beef patty? C: No. V: What? Why not? C: My artistic vision demands that the meat be present. V: (irritated) Fine. I'll have the hamburger. C: Here you go. V: <throws meat patty into the trash> C: That's not allowed! Wharrgarbl! This isn't a matter of "can I substitute lobster tails for the fries?". You can't force someone to consume something they don't want just because that's the way you want it. Clearly, it is well within the capabilities of the cook to make a regular hamburger and not put the meat into it in the first place. Bundling up the entire sandwich as one unit may be more convenient for the cook, but it might be irritating for the customers, and the cook's business is driven by customers. In the context of this specific website, the cook is grinding the meat up with the vegetables, in such a way that it is needlessly difficult to throw away the meat. It may not be intentionally hostile to vegetarians, but it does show a careless disregard to anyone that doesn't like their sandwich the only way the cook makes it.