4 ms·

I'm impressed by the quality of the results. I don't know why you've made it rely on javascript though. It would have been so easy to make it degrade gracefull

I'm impressed by the quality of the results. I don't know why you've made it rely on javascript though. It would have been so easy to make it degrade gracefully... Surely no more than half an hours work?

jmulho 16y ago
I see this complaint a lot, and agree it is not hard to provide basic functionality without JavaScript. However, I'd be interested to know where in life the JavaScript is lacking. The only place I have ever encountered a lack of JavaScript was the browser on the Nintendo Wii (I was shocked and amazed).
- mike-cardwell 16y ago
  I've personally been hit by XSS on Twitter. Millions of other people have been hit by XSS flaws too. The Internet's mostly composed of poorly written websites lacking basic security, so I'm no longer comfortable having JS turned on globally. I disable it and enable it temporarily on a per website basis. Fortunately, the vast majority of websites don't need it to be enabled for them to work. It's just a bit annoying when you come across a website that has no real requirement for JS but wont work without it, so you have to enable it.
  - chrisbroadfoot 16y ago
    XSS is a non issue here. There is no user data on this website.
    - mike-cardwell 16y ago
      That's not really an argument against my policy of globally disabling JS though is it. I have enabled it for this website, but it shouldn't have been necessary. Besides, who knows what might happen to the website in future? He might add some premium services and require a login? The important question is this though, how well does this website work with screen readers? I'm guessing blind people are out of look here, but I know there are a few blind people who hang around here so I'm hoping one of them gives it a try and reports back.
hasenj 16y ago
it's only a half hour worth of work now but it's a maintenance headache down the road, I'm sure.
- mike-cardwell 16y ago
  I don't see how... The website is a page with a form. Not a webmail client or a forum...

jmulho 16y ago

I see this complaint a lot, and agree it is not hard to provide basic functionality without JavaScript. However, I'd be interested to know where in life the JavaScript is lacking. The only place I have ever encountered a lack of JavaScript was the browser on the Nintendo Wii (I was shocked and amazed).

mike-cardwell 16y ago
I've personally been hit by XSS on Twitter. Millions of other people have been hit by XSS flaws too. The Internet's mostly composed of poorly written websites lacking basic security, so I'm no longer comfortable having JS turned on globally. I disable it and enable it temporarily on a per website basis. Fortunately, the vast majority of websites don't need it to be enabled for them to work. It's just a bit annoying when you come across a website that has no real requirement for JS but wont work without it, so you have to enable it.
- chrisbroadfoot 16y ago
  XSS is a non issue here. There is no user data on this website.
  - mike-cardwell 16y ago
    That's not really an argument against my policy of globally disabling JS though is it. I have enabled it for this website, but it shouldn't have been necessary. Besides, who knows what might happen to the website in future? He might add some premium services and require a login? The important question is this though, how well does this website work with screen readers? I'm guessing blind people are out of look here, but I know there are a few blind people who hang around here so I'm hoping one of them gives it a try and reports back.

hasenj 16y ago

it's only a half hour worth of work now but it's a maintenance headache down the road, I'm sure.

mike-cardwell 16y ago
I don't see how... The website is a page with a form. Not a webmail client or a forum...