3 ms·
The thing is that in 2018, JS is a requirement. Yes developers could spend extra time adjusting for static vs dynamic content but there is a tradeoff to everyth
by codegeek 8y ago
The thing is that in 2018, JS is a requirement. Yes developers could spend extra time adjusting for static vs dynamic content but there is a tradeoff to everything. In most cases, it is not worth tweaking the site to cater to audiences who turn off JS by default. You are just a small minority and not worth the time. It is all about trade-offs.
- jamieweb 8y agoThere is the <noscript> tag, but its usage seems extremely low. I'm half surprised that it made it into the HTML5 spec to be honest, similar ones such as <noframes> were left out.
- clusmore 8y agoThe thing that annoys me the most about this are websites that render a blank white page, but when you check the page source you realise the content is right there, but hidden by default and then unhidden through JavaScript. It boggles the mind.
- codegeek 8y agoI do agree that a <noscript> tag would make it a bit more user-friendly but again, it is just not a priority for majority of web devs these days. I bet a lot of noobs don't even know those tags.
- zzo38computer 8y agoI agree, but I use user CSS to fix that (and many other problems, many of which have nothing to do with JavaScript anyways). One thing I saw in one webpage is in the comments of the JavaScript code they mentioned it is for "click jack" protection, apparently.