3 ms·
I think your downvoting has less to do with whether turning off JavaScript is a good or bad practice, and more to do with people just being sick of hearing abou
by umanwizard 7y ago
I think your downvoting has less to do with whether turning off JavaScript is a good or bad practice, and more to do with people just being sick of hearing about it.
In every story that’s even tangentially related, someone always feels the need to bring up the fact that they can’t believe anyone would ever have JS turned on, even if it’s totally irrelevant (like it is here).
It’s basically the Hacker News equivalent of people getting annoyed at vegans.
- thethirdone 7y agoI think commenting about the linked page being completely broken without js enabled is relevant (especially if the page could be just as good without it). I don't think it merits much conversation want time, but remembering accessibility is good. Similarly, accessibility features for the (color)blind should be mentioned if they are bothering someone.
- mkozlows 7y agoJavascript being enabled/disabled has nothing at all to do with accessibility. A site can be JS-heavy and fully accessible. (Most aren't. But it's because they're developing it poorly, not because they're using JS.)
- thethirdone 7y ago> Javascript being enabled/disabled has nothing at all to do with accessibility. It does have to do with how well people with js turned off can access sites.