3 ms·
> It may be less verbose but it fails completely to render anything if javascript is not enabled (in the browser) on the domain the scripts are to be loaded fro
by zeroname 8y ago
> It may be less verbose but it fails completely to render anything if javascript is not enabled (in the browser) on the domain the scripts are to be loaded from. Bad accessibility, bad degredation, bad practice for the web.
I call BS on that. The accessibility tools that people actually use only work with "proper" browsers (counting in IE here) that all support Javascript. Modern browsers don't even officially support disabling Javascript. For most web apps, the only feasible way to degrade from "no Javascript" is to display "this page requires Javascript". Spending any more effort here because it's "good practice" is a complete waste of time. Put some effort into testing screen readers instead.
> HTML is the web.
Nonsense.
> All this pure es6/dom stuff is a cancer.
Hey, who are you to tell people what to use the web for? If somebody wants to serve as static HTML page, nobody is stopping them. Nobody is forcing people to use some Javascript framework for that.
- superkuh 8y ago> Modern browsers don't even officially support disabling Javascript. That's right. The big browsers have all been co-opted (even firefox) and now target Grandma browsing Facebook and other SPA as their demographic. This is bad for the web but very good for corporations making money. These two things aren't very compatible no matter how much most web devs are invested in not realizing there's a difference. I'm telling you how I see it and how I design my sites. None of them require javascript to function (even for my comment system). I can do this because I'm not being paid I'm just doing it for fun. I understand people being paid have to make bad websites. But that doesn't make it okay.