3 ms·

That's totally fine, and part of what makes the web great is that you're able to tweak things on the client like that. Really it only becomes a problem if you

That's totally fine, and part of what makes the web great is that you're able to tweak things on the client like that. Really it only becomes a problem if you become one of those people that harasses web devs for not supporting noscript users. At the end of the day Javascript is a web standard, and it's developer's jobs to target those standards.

userbinator 7y ago
No, it should be the developer's job to make content accessible in the most efficient way and to the widest audience. JS can be, but often it really shouldn't be used and there is a simpler solution. Some sites really do need to be JS webapps, but most of them don't. Your users may not care whether you use JS or not, but they do care when your site is slow because you chose to "appify" it unnecessarily and make it require downloading and running JS to show the same content that could've been directly served as a static HTML page.
- todd3834 7y ago
  I would argue that the developer’s job should be to determine whether or not supporting users without JavaScript would generate more money than it costs to maintain. It’s going to depend on the target audience and what you are developing. For example: Google Docs with JavaScript turned off makes no sense to me. Hacker News on the other hand could make sense. Much higher percentage of security concerned users and the amount of work to support it is likely not monumental.
Causality1 7y ago
That would be really stupid of me, yeah. It's their site and they can do it however they want. I wouldn't yell at someone for writing a book in Spanish just because I can't read it. Aside from that, almost every site I actually visit gets put on my whitelist. It's the ones accessed through ads that're dangerous. If I didn't regularly run into ads that make it past adblock I wouldn't bother blocking JS at all.
iamnothere 7y ago
To be fair, the noscript tag is also a standard, and supporting non-JS browsers is important for some disabled users.

userbinator 7y ago

No, it should be the developer's job to make content accessible in the most efficient way and to the widest audience. JS can be, but often it really shouldn't be used and there is a simpler solution. Some sites really do need to be JS webapps, but most of them don't. Your users may not care whether you use JS or not, but they do care when your site is slow because you chose to "appify" it unnecessarily and make it require downloading and running JS to show the same content that could've been directly served as a static HTML page.

todd3834 7y ago
I would argue that the developer’s job should be to determine whether or not supporting users without JavaScript would generate more money than it costs to maintain. It’s going to depend on the target audience and what you are developing. For example: Google Docs with JavaScript turned off makes no sense to me. Hacker News on the other hand could make sense. Much higher percentage of security concerned users and the amount of work to support it is likely not monumental.

Causality1 7y ago

That would be really stupid of me, yeah. It's their site and they can do it however they want. I wouldn't yell at someone for writing a book in Spanish just because I can't read it. Aside from that, almost every site I actually visit gets put on my whitelist. It's the ones accessed through ads that're dangerous. If I didn't regularly run into ads that make it past adblock I wouldn't bother blocking JS at all.

iamnothere 7y ago

To be fair, the noscript tag is also a standard, and supporting non-JS browsers is important for some disabled users.