2 ms·
That really depends on what you're building. Using cookies to run sessions is pretty much the norm, so trying to support stateful application behavior for peop
by mpk 18y ago
That really depends on what you're building.
Using cookies to run sessions is pretty much the norm, so trying to support stateful application behavior for people that refuse to use cookies sounds like a good way to waste a lot of time.
JavaScript .. well, if you're a public website then the whole thing should just work without JS and degrade gracefully where you do use it.
Having specific functionality JS-only is fine for certain applications, but it's considered good form (and for some government contracts - a requirement) to present an alternative non-JS interface for accessibility purposes.
Check out http://maps.google.com http://maps.google.com with JS disabled, for a good example.
- xirium 18y ago> trying to support stateful application behavior for people that refuse to use cookies sounds like a good way to waste a lot of time. Some frameworks handle this automatically. At worst, you append a parameter to each internal URL. > JavaScript ... considered good form Making your website degrade also helps visibility in search engines. Feel free to ignore this consideration but those who provide graceful degradation will have a small and sustained advantage over your efforts.