3 ms·

There’s a lot of Javascript on the Internet. If you disable it in your browser, there’s going to be some content you can’t use. It’s a trade off. Not every webs

There’s a lot of Javascript on the Internet. If you disable it in your browser, there’s going to be some content you can’t use. It’s a trade off. Not every website has no-JS users designed in mind. I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point.

crooked-v 8y ago
Isomorphic server side rendering gets you the best of both worlds and isn't hard to set up these days as long as you have it in mind from the start.
seba_dos1 8y ago
Of course. Not every application running in a browser is a website just because it runs in the browser. However, here we're talking about a very websitish website, with its websiteness even being the central point of its websitey existence... and yet it doesn't work as a website ;)
dictum 8y ago
> I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point. Some unrequested advice on ethics: I really understand your pragmatism, but in defending the way things are at this point, you are indirectly defending the consequences, even if you don't directly support these consequences. This sounds weirdly stern (we're talking about web development, not, say, the Middle East) but I think this applies to everything we do. When you choose to use a tool or a technique because everyone else is doing it, you are endorsing the status quo and its harmful or positive side effects, to some degree. Defending the way things are right now isn't wrong by itself, but it is not a neutral action.
superkuh 8y ago
It is reality for businesses and large institutions. I can accept that they don't care about anything other than making (or saving) money which drives their managers to drive their coders to make shitty sites that encourage unsafe practices. But when those same coders come home and defend the practice just because they have to do it for work I'm a bit confused. It shouldn't be controversial that this is a bad thing. I'd guess it's sunk costs type thinking.

crooked-v 8y ago

Isomorphic server side rendering gets you the best of both worlds and isn't hard to set up these days as long as you have it in mind from the start.

seba_dos1 8y ago

Of course. Not every application running in a browser is a website just because it runs in the browser. However, here we're talking about a very websitish website, with its websiteness even being the central point of its websitey existence... and yet it doesn't work as a website ;)

dictum 8y ago

> I’m not defending the lack of accessibility. It’s just a reality at this point. Some unrequested advice on ethics: I really understand your pragmatism, but in defending the way things are at this point, you are indirectly defending the consequences, even if you don't directly support these consequences. This sounds weirdly stern (we're talking about web development, not, say, the Middle East) but I think this applies to everything we do. When you choose to use a tool or a technique because everyone else is doing it, you are endorsing the status quo and its harmful or positive side effects, to some degree. Defending the way things are right now isn't wrong by itself, but it is not a neutral action.

superkuh 8y ago

It is reality for businesses and large institutions. I can accept that they don't care about anything other than making (or saving) money which drives their managers to drive their coders to make shitty sites that encourage unsafe practices. But when those same coders come home and defend the practice just because they have to do it for work I'm a bit confused. It shouldn't be controversial that this is a bad thing. I'd guess it's sunk costs type thinking.