4 ms·
This write-up mostly highlights the loading speed and bandwidth benefits but not requiring javascript is far better than just that. In the age of spectre and wi
by superkuh 8y ago
This write-up mostly highlights the loading speed and bandwidth benefits but not requiring javascript is far better than just that. In the age of spectre and with browsers exposing more and more bare metal functionality the idea of running arbitrary code on every random site I go to is absurd. There's dozens of us that simply don't run JS. Sites like these (and, say, the way chicago public media does fallback for no JS) show that there can still be pretty, functional sites without the modern equivalent of opening that .exe attached to a random email.
Thanks and keep up the good fight.
- nkrisc 8y agoI'm not sure if you meant this or not, but there's text.npr.org. Honestly I'd prefer much of the web this way. I'd be OK with images too.
- pault 8y ago> There's dozens of us that simply don't run JS Was this intentional? It gave me a bit of a chuckle.
- superkuh 8y agoIt was an acknowledgement that there aren't enough people like myself for web devs at for profit businesses or institutions to care about.
- roryokane 8y agoI saw some actual statistics recently on a link from a blog with a lot of posts about accessibility (I forget which). It said that 1 in 98 users (1% of visitors) didn’t load JavaScript in a page, and 0.2% of visitors didn’t load the script because they had explicitly disabled JavaScript, as opposed to other reasons such as a poor network connection.