4 ms·
Rendering an anchor in the place of an image in case I don't have JavaScript enabled doesn't feel very good. I'd much rather have image solutions that fail gra
by lpghatguy 7y ago
Rendering an anchor in the place of an image in case I don't have JavaScript enabled doesn't feel very good.
I'd much rather have image solutions that fail gracefully if the JS on my page is broken or the user just has it disabled.
- bastawhiz 7y agoIt would be nice if they supported an anchor with a noscript tag inside containing the image
- duhi88 7y agoWhy not? I think it is a fair replacement for a lot of image use-cases. If JS is turned off, users still have the ability to view the image and description, without the image hurting your total page weight.
- keanebean86 7y agoHave a style sheet at the bottom of the page below some js. The js sets up lazy loading and changes all the image div id/classes so the style sheet does nothing. The style sheet sets the image divs backgrounds to your images otherwise. That should still work without js. Although it's a mess to work with...