4 ms·
"No JS" sounds better than "Almost no JS except for a line or two for minor usability enhancements." What's the difference between a site with no JS and a site
by nkrisc 8y ago
"No JS" sounds better than "Almost no JS except for a line or two for minor usability enhancements."
What's the difference between a site with no JS and a site that has a few lines of inline JS to handle expanding and collapsing comments? Probably nothing, but one sounds better. It's just like how you never hear people bragging about being almost-completely-vegan-except-for-that-one-egg-sandwich-a-month.
- baddox 8y agoPeople are never impressed by my strict fasting-between-meals regiment̶.
- rpeden 8y agoI, for one, am impressed that you have an entire regiment. A platoon is the best that most of us could hope for.
- yeahitslikethat 8y agoStrange. I find people are quite impressed with my one meal a day intermittent fasting.
- zzzcpan 8y agoYou can't disable javascript in a browser, but leave "a few minor javascript improvements". So the difference is between allowing all the ad tech, surveillance, malware or not.
- nkrisc 8y agoWhich is fine. If all your JS is doing is adding a few QoL features like collapsing comments, then your site will still be completely usable if the client chooses to not run JS. Those that run JS will still load probably just as fast as those without it even if it's not truly "no JS."
- Can_Not 8y agoYou can do a lot more than nothing about isolating unwanted javascript. Ublock origin, noscript, privacy badger, use one of many curated hosts files, etc..