6 ms·

Explain that to a potential investor. "We snubbed 2% of our potential user base because we were too lazy to make sure that our site degrades gracefully." From t

Explain that to a potential investor. "We snubbed 2% of our potential user base because we were too lazy to make sure that our site degrades gracefully." From the article, that's _6 million_ of Yahoo!'s 300M+ user base. I really don't understand what's the big deal about making sure your site works without JS, it's just some extra work that you're going to have to do anyway later down the line (and it will be more complex then).

DjDarkman 16y ago
We were too lazy to spend at least twice the time creating the product. Shorter version: 2x more work does not justify 2%
metageek 16y ago
It's potentially a lot of extra work. If your site's UI is heavy on the AJAX, a non-JS option basically means writing a completely separate UI. Explain to an investor, "We don't have features X, Y, and Z, which our competitors have, because we were spending time maintaining the non-JS version for 2% of our user base.".
- jamesaguilar 16y ago
  Also, non-Javascript Luddism may correlate with other forms of Luddism. For example, non-eCommerce Luddism or non-ads-clicking Luddism. So it might be that you're doing all that work for people who are not going to benefit your bottom line as much as the typical user. It's something each business probably has to measure for itself, but the people saying, "I don't see what the big deal is," just aren't looking hard enough.
  - wtallis 16y ago
    I don't think Luddites are savvy enough to figure out how to disable JavaScript, and most of the people who disable JavaScript are probably at the opposite end of the spectrum: people who know the privacy and security risks of JavaScript, and who would rather a website be obviously broken on the first visit than have it be subversively annoying and ad-laden. If an e-commerce site won't let me get to their product list and see prices without cookies and Javascript, I won't buy from them if there are alternatives. There's no real justification for making a simple online store 100% AJAX for even the most basic features, so the sites that do that don't get my money. (They probably don't do to well from an SEO perspective, either.) Blogs that require cookies and JavaScript before they'll show their content are obviously more concerned with spamming me than being of use to me, so they also get closed immediately.
lukifer 16y ago
If your web page is a simple marketing site, blog, or e-store, then I completely agree. But if your web page is a complex application, having to support no-JS either shuts you out from from a huge set of interface tools, or forces you to maintain two interfaces in tandem. To me, 2% doesn't justify that, particularly when you can just politely inform the user that their browser has a significant feature disabled, and inform them how they can remedy the situation so that your site works.
- reid 16y ago
  Even if your users have JavaScript enabled, they still need to download and run it before using your complex application. Consider GMail. How awesome would it be if you didn't have to wait for its "Loading..." progress bar? It takes 2-4 seconds for that to go away on my computer. If you design for progressive enhancement, you can interact immediately and when JS is ready, it simply enhances what's already there. If done right, it's all the same interface. If you don't mind waiting, your users may not agree: Google and Amazon both have noted significant losses in revenue at page delays much shorter than 2 seconds.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > Consider GMail. How awesome would it be if you didn't have to wait for its "Loading..." progress bar? Well, taking a look at "Basic HTML view"... considerably less awesome.
    - reid 16y ago
      My point was that Google solves this problem the wrong way. Instead of making two interfaces, they should make one interface. If JavaScript hasn't loaded yet (or if it's disabled), the majority of the interface can still be available immediately. JavaScript should always add to the experience. It doesn't make sense to show GMail's Chat widget until JS is loaded-- but it really doesn't make sense to show nothing at all until the Chat JS downloads and runs! You should be able to show the message list right away. You can start scanning your messages immediately. You can click normal links and submit forms. Bonus for JS enabled users: a few seconds later the links, buttons, etc. all get hooked up to JavaScript. The Chat widget appears. By the time you click, things may even happen all AJAXy-- and it appeared to load instantly by loading JS in the background. Now that's awesome.
pbiggar 16y ago
Try explaining to a potential investor: "We lost the market because we were busy making sure the last 2% of potential customers could use the site".
code_duck 16y ago
2%? Is that supposed to sound significant? I'm sure Yahoo would be doing fine, give or take 6 million users.
techiferous 16y ago
"I really don't understand what's the big deal about making sure your site works without JS" It's worth reminding ourselves that the business and technical constraints of different web applications vary widely and so strategies will also vary widely. For example, if you are building a greenfield app and your purpose is to try to search for a product/market fit, it generally doesn't make sense to optimize for the 2% of non-js users yet. You haven't yet found a steady source of revenue meaning that (1) you probably can't afford the extra effort and (2) your app's features are likely going to change drastically.
kalid 16y ago
Tell that to facebook (http://i.imgur.com/9FdJa.png http://i.imgur.com/9FdJa.png) :-). The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles (no AJAX, need regular forms for everything), lose dynamic menus (want to duplicate those?), lose a ton of instrumentation you may be doing, etc. I think it's perfectly fine to say "non-js means you have a read-only experience". Even facebook doesn't go that far -- you can't even log in without js enabled! (And they're definitely in the camp of 2% * 500M). What will people do who have js disabled? They'll get a tech friend to help, because that disabling was probably a misconfiguration :). At some point you have to prioritize your time to work on the features that help 95% of your users.
- mike-cardwell 16y ago
  Facebook caters for non js people by directing them to the cut down mobile version of the site. Which is not a perfect solution, but it is much much better than simply telling them to go away.
- kls 16y ago
  The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles I would think you are being generous. A marked advantage of JS based RIA is rapid time to market, it is a simpler development model that provides superior usability when done correctly. The old page post model is a considerably slower development model. Hence all the server side frameworks, people have been trying to crack that nut, in the page post model, since someone bolted up CGI POST to a script and spit out some dynamic HTML.
jbail 16y ago
It might not be laziness that you don't support that 2%. It costs real time and money to add and support fallback content and functionality. There could be better uses of that time and money that create more value for the business...which is something your investors should understand.
kls 16y ago
Explain that to a potential investor. We snubbed 2% of our potential user base and reinvested the money we saved in increasing the conversion rate of the 98%. Further we are going to use some of that money to chase additional revenue streams. If we exploit all available revenue models and hit a wall with upping the conversion rate, we will look at creating a separate none JS version of the site with reduced functionality, so that the two distinctive development models are not intertwined therefore reducing out maintenance burden.

DjDarkman 16y ago

We were too lazy to spend at least twice the time creating the product. Shorter version: 2x more work does not justify 2%

metageek 16y ago

It's potentially a lot of extra work. If your site's UI is heavy on the AJAX, a non-JS option basically means writing a completely separate UI. Explain to an investor, "We don't have features X, Y, and Z, which our competitors have, because we were spending time maintaining the non-JS version for 2% of our user base.".

jamesaguilar 16y ago
Also, non-Javascript Luddism may correlate with other forms of Luddism. For example, non-eCommerce Luddism or non-ads-clicking Luddism. So it might be that you're doing all that work for people who are not going to benefit your bottom line as much as the typical user. It's something each business probably has to measure for itself, but the people saying, "I don't see what the big deal is," just aren't looking hard enough.
- wtallis 16y ago
  I don't think Luddites are savvy enough to figure out how to disable JavaScript, and most of the people who disable JavaScript are probably at the opposite end of the spectrum: people who know the privacy and security risks of JavaScript, and who would rather a website be obviously broken on the first visit than have it be subversively annoying and ad-laden. If an e-commerce site won't let me get to their product list and see prices without cookies and Javascript, I won't buy from them if there are alternatives. There's no real justification for making a simple online store 100% AJAX for even the most basic features, so the sites that do that don't get my money. (They probably don't do to well from an SEO perspective, either.) Blogs that require cookies and JavaScript before they'll show their content are obviously more concerned with spamming me than being of use to me, so they also get closed immediately.

lukifer 16y ago

If your web page is a simple marketing site, blog, or e-store, then I completely agree. But if your web page is a complex application, having to support no-JS either shuts you out from from a huge set of interface tools, or forces you to maintain two interfaces in tandem. To me, 2% doesn't justify that, particularly when you can just politely inform the user that their browser has a significant feature disabled, and inform them how they can remedy the situation so that your site works.

reid 16y ago
Even if your users have JavaScript enabled, they still need to download and run it before using your complex application. Consider GMail. How awesome would it be if you didn't have to wait for its "Loading..." progress bar? It takes 2-4 seconds for that to go away on my computer. If you design for progressive enhancement, you can interact immediately and when JS is ready, it simply enhances what's already there. If done right, it's all the same interface. If you don't mind waiting, your users may not agree: Google and Amazon both have noted significant losses in revenue at page delays much shorter than 2 seconds.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > Consider GMail. How awesome would it be if you didn't have to wait for its "Loading..." progress bar? Well, taking a look at "Basic HTML view"... considerably less awesome.
  - reid 16y ago
    My point was that Google solves this problem the wrong way. Instead of making two interfaces, they should make one interface. If JavaScript hasn't loaded yet (or if it's disabled), the majority of the interface can still be available immediately. JavaScript should always add to the experience. It doesn't make sense to show GMail's Chat widget until JS is loaded-- but it really doesn't make sense to show nothing at all until the Chat JS downloads and runs! You should be able to show the message list right away. You can start scanning your messages immediately. You can click normal links and submit forms. Bonus for JS enabled users: a few seconds later the links, buttons, etc. all get hooked up to JavaScript. The Chat widget appears. By the time you click, things may even happen all AJAXy-- and it appeared to load instantly by loading JS in the background. Now that's awesome.

pbiggar 16y ago

Try explaining to a potential investor: "We lost the market because we were busy making sure the last 2% of potential customers could use the site".

code_duck 16y ago

2%? Is that supposed to sound significant? I'm sure Yahoo would be doing fine, give or take 6 million users.

techiferous 16y ago

"I really don't understand what's the big deal about making sure your site works without JS" It's worth reminding ourselves that the business and technical constraints of different web applications vary widely and so strategies will also vary widely. For example, if you are building a greenfield app and your purpose is to try to search for a product/market fit, it generally doesn't make sense to optimize for the 2% of non-js users yet. You haven't yet found a steady source of revenue meaning that (1) you probably can't afford the extra effort and (2) your app's features are likely going to change drastically.

kalid 16y ago

Tell that to facebook (http://i.imgur.com/9FdJa.png http://i.imgur.com/9FdJa.png) :-). The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles (no AJAX, need regular forms for everything), lose dynamic menus (want to duplicate those?), lose a ton of instrumentation you may be doing, etc. I think it's perfectly fine to say "non-js means you have a read-only experience". Even facebook doesn't go that far -- you can't even log in without js enabled! (And they're definitely in the camp of 2% * 500M). What will people do who have js disabled? They'll get a tech friend to help, because that disabling was probably a misconfiguration :). At some point you have to prioritize your time to work on the features that help 95% of your users.

mike-cardwell 16y ago
Facebook caters for non js people by directing them to the cut down mobile version of the site. Which is not a perfect solution, but it is much much better than simply telling them to go away.
kls 16y ago
The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles I would think you are being generous. A marked advantage of JS based RIA is rapid time to market, it is a simpler development model that provides superior usability when done correctly. The old page post model is a considerably slower development model. Hence all the server side frameworks, people have been trying to crack that nut, in the page post model, since someone bolted up CGI POST to a script and spit out some dynamic HTML.

jbail 16y ago

It might not be laziness that you don't support that 2%. It costs real time and money to add and support fallback content and functionality. There could be better uses of that time and money that create more value for the business...which is something your investors should understand.

kls 16y ago

Explain that to a potential investor. We snubbed 2% of our potential user base and reinvested the money we saved in increasing the conversion rate of the 98%. Further we are going to use some of that money to chase additional revenue streams. If we exploit all available revenue models and hit a wall with upping the conversion rate, we will look at creating a separate none JS version of the site with reduced functionality, so that the two distinctive development models are not intertwined therefore reducing out maintenance burden.