4 ms·
It doesn't take a lot of genius, time, or money to set a link w/ url parameters or use a standard html form for e.g. upvoting or comment submission, and then ov
by PostOnce 8y ago
It doesn't take a lot of genius, time, or money to set a link w/ url parameters or use a standard html form for e.g. upvoting or comment submission, and then override that with javascript for fancier UI / AJAX / avoid redirects, etc -- i.e., extra polish, rather than it being the only option and the site just becomes nonfunctional instead of degrading gracefully.
This benefits more than just one tiny group of users: it might also aid disabled users and accessibility software (not to mention the developers of that software), security nuts, people who turn js off to improve performance on low-spec machines (it's 2018 here, but more than a few countries have a four (or even three!) figure GDP/capita, so their machines aren't going to be 2018 machines. This is just off the top of my head, how many other groups might there be that would benefit?
- bluedevil2k 8y agoYou're thinking as a developer and not as a business. A website that works perfectly well for 99% of visitors and adds the pizazz to keep them on the site is the goal.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoComplaining about decisions like these is a form of market pressure. A weak one, but still within the rules of the business game.
- dredmorbius 8y agoCorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty
- reitanqild 8y agoWill it help the businesses if they learned that plain web sites are easier to create (and update), are better for the users and needs less maintenance?
- joshuamorton 8y agoBut that's not true, because they also need the fancy ways of doing things as a reaction to demand. So now they have more code, more to test, qa is more difficult, more surface area for bugs, etc. Adding features isn't easier to maintain.