4 ms·

How do you plan to accommodate NoScript users?

ervine 8y ago
You generate a css file with something like webpack.
mxstbr 8y ago
During server-side rendering CSS-in-JS returns a <style> tag with all the CSS inlined. If you do not server-side render, it does not matter whether you put your CSS into JavaScript or not—your JavaScript app is not going to render anything anyway.
osrec 8y ago
I know this will be unpopular, but after a certain point, noscript users just get a bad experience and that can't be helped. If a developer wants to provide a rich experience, then there will always be certain platform requirements. Without them, you will have a lacklustre experience. It's like saying "I want to have all the whizzy functionality of your app, but I want to access it using a standard, run of the mill, mud-laden potato" - it's just not going to be possible.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dictum 8y ago
  I know how the sausage is made, so I know that making a full web app work without JS isn't at reach for most teams/products. By knowing how the sausage is made, I'm also aware that the line marking the aforementioned certain point is often drawn too early, at informational (i.e. document) stuff where HTML and CSS are fully capable on their own.
  - osrec 8y ago
    You underestimate developers; they can make it work without JS if they have to. But why should we constrain ourselves?! I mean, there is nothing wrong with JS when used properly. In fact, JS is extremely useful in the browser. It adds to the richness and interactivity of webpages. We must collectively appreciate this, and stop denying this! Even HN is a better experience with JS. Some sites do give JS a bad name, and poorly used JS is something I hate too, but JS as a concept is something that I wholeheartedly support. Thankfully, the web is mostly opt-in - if you don't like the way a site employs technology, just don't visit it. Simple.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  noscript users certainly signed up for a subpar internet experience, but its not just them that should be thought about. Slow internet connections are a reason to think about the experience when loading JS is slow and/or failed. It's not just 'poor people' who have slow internet - 'rich people' on inflight wifi or on the internet on the train can result in things not loading.
  - osrec 8y ago
    There isn't much that can make an in-flight connection seem quick, but we've tried with our PWA (https://usebx.com/app https://usebx.com/app) and to a certain extent, succeeded. Ok, we do assume that you have visited our webpage at least once in an area of strong signal, however, once you've done that, all the JS is cached and all we transmit back and forth are lightweight, gzipped json payloads, often less than a kilobyte. I use my own PWA regularly, and found it actually quite usable in-flight.
  - thedaemon 8y ago
    I think this is a big issue with such JavaScript and load heavy web-sites & apps. They forget that they have users without 1GB connections and who can't afford, weather financially or location based, the download the 500MBs of data required to load their web-site. That and hiding CSS inside of JS feels like a sneaky tactic to keep people from editing it? Or does it actually create the CSS on the fly? I wasn't quite sure after reading the article.
    - ringaroll 8y ago
      No regular JS only website/app required 500mb of data. Please stop exaggerating. It does not make your point valid.
yodon 8y ago
NoScript users are almost always economically irrelevant to the business posting the page. They tend to be extra aggressive blockers of ads (and therefore ad revenue) and are sufficiently far from the center of the bell curve technologically that they are both a tiny minority and their product needs and wants tend to be edge cases that are not economically efficient for the business to pursue. I get why NoScript users want to run NoScript, but it's the most powerful signal a web visitor can provide a business to say "focus your resources on the needs of others ahead of mine."
davnicwil 8y ago
React apps have to be deliberately engineered to work without JS at all, via server rendering. Assuming that's done though, the CSS in JS can just be server rendered too. It's rather easy too if you're using a (great) library like styled components - this functionality is built in and just works with a couple of extra lines of code. The deeper question here is will the app work at all without JS. That's quite hard to achieve (every client side interaction must have a server rendered equivalent accessible via a url or url params, essentially) but the CSS part is easy.
bfrydl 8y ago
The only reason I know of to bother supporting NoScript users is so that when you announce your site on Hacker News you don't have to read that one angry privacy guy talking about how bloated your site is because it requires 200 KB of JS.
ggregoire 8y ago
Does he need to? I know my users don't use NoScript.
bastawhiz 8y ago
It doesn't really matter how the JS components are styled if NoScript users aren't loading JS, though I assume you know that and are just trying to make a point that sites shouldn't be using JavaScript.
ringaroll 8y ago
They're economically irrelevant so they're ignored. Their demands tend to be edge cases. NoScript users are like the customer that demands the most but pays least. After some rants of such customer, they're ignored.

You generate a css file with something like webpack.

During server-side rendering CSS-in-JS returns a <style> tag with all the CSS inlined. If you do not server-side render, it does not matter whether you put your CSS into JavaScript or not—your JavaScript app is not going to render anything anyway.

osrec 8y ago

I know this will be unpopular, but after a certain point, noscript users just get a bad experience and that can't be helped. If a developer wants to provide a rich experience, then there will always be certain platform requirements. Without them, you will have a lacklustre experience. It's like saying "I want to have all the whizzy functionality of your app, but I want to access it using a standard, run of the mill, mud-laden potato" - it's just not going to be possible.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dictum 8y ago
I know how the sausage is made, so I know that making a full web app work without JS isn't at reach for most teams/products. By knowing how the sausage is made, I'm also aware that the line marking the aforementioned certain point is often drawn too early, at informational (i.e. document) stuff where HTML and CSS are fully capable on their own.
- osrec 8y ago
  You underestimate developers; they can make it work without JS if they have to. But why should we constrain ourselves?! I mean, there is nothing wrong with JS when used properly. In fact, JS is extremely useful in the browser. It adds to the richness and interactivity of webpages. We must collectively appreciate this, and stop denying this! Even HN is a better experience with JS. Some sites do give JS a bad name, and poorly used JS is something I hate too, but JS as a concept is something that I wholeheartedly support. Thankfully, the web is mostly opt-in - if you don't like the way a site employs technology, just don't visit it. Simple.
madeofpalk 8y ago
noscript users certainly signed up for a subpar internet experience, but its not just them that should be thought about. Slow internet connections are a reason to think about the experience when loading JS is slow and/or failed. It's not just 'poor people' who have slow internet - 'rich people' on inflight wifi or on the internet on the train can result in things not loading.
- osrec 8y ago
  There isn't much that can make an in-flight connection seem quick, but we've tried with our PWA (https://usebx.com/app https://usebx.com/app) and to a certain extent, succeeded. Ok, we do assume that you have visited our webpage at least once in an area of strong signal, however, once you've done that, all the JS is cached and all we transmit back and forth are lightweight, gzipped json payloads, often less than a kilobyte. I use my own PWA regularly, and found it actually quite usable in-flight.
- thedaemon 8y ago
  I think this is a big issue with such JavaScript and load heavy web-sites & apps. They forget that they have users without 1GB connections and who can't afford, weather financially or location based, the download the 500MBs of data required to load their web-site. That and hiding CSS inside of JS feels like a sneaky tactic to keep people from editing it? Or does it actually create the CSS on the fly? I wasn't quite sure after reading the article.
  - ringaroll 8y ago
    No regular JS only website/app required 500mb of data. Please stop exaggerating. It does not make your point valid.

yodon 8y ago

NoScript users are almost always economically irrelevant to the business posting the page. They tend to be extra aggressive blockers of ads (and therefore ad revenue) and are sufficiently far from the center of the bell curve technologically that they are both a tiny minority and their product needs and wants tend to be edge cases that are not economically efficient for the business to pursue. I get why NoScript users want to run NoScript, but it's the most powerful signal a web visitor can provide a business to say "focus your resources on the needs of others ahead of mine."

davnicwil 8y ago

React apps have to be deliberately engineered to work without JS at all, via server rendering. Assuming that's done though, the CSS in JS can just be server rendered too. It's rather easy too if you're using a (great) library like styled components - this functionality is built in and just works with a couple of extra lines of code. The deeper question here is will the app work at all without JS. That's quite hard to achieve (every client side interaction must have a server rendered equivalent accessible via a url or url params, essentially) but the CSS part is easy.

bfrydl 8y ago

The only reason I know of to bother supporting NoScript users is so that when you announce your site on Hacker News you don't have to read that one angry privacy guy talking about how bloated your site is because it requires 200 KB of JS.

ggregoire 8y ago

Does he need to? I know my users don't use NoScript.

bastawhiz 8y ago

It doesn't really matter how the JS components are styled if NoScript users aren't loading JS, though I assume you know that and are just trying to make a point that sites shouldn't be using JavaScript.

ringaroll 8y ago

They're economically irrelevant so they're ignored. Their demands tend to be edge cases. NoScript users are like the customer that demands the most but pays least. After some rants of such customer, they're ignored.