5 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25076987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25076987

viraptor 6y ago
Accessibility doesn't really mean catering to people who choose to disable JS in their browser. There's whole set of standards for providing accessibility with dynamic web https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/ https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/
- bluefox 6y ago
  Says you.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    And every common description of web accessibility. From WAI to Wikipedia to common courses. I'm not saying it's good design or the right direction for GitHub. Just that accessibility is important and disabling-js is not really it. Specifically: disabling JS - your choice; having a disability - not your choice.
    - bluefox 6y ago
      In my case, yes, it is by choice. But do you think everyone has a choice? JavaScript is a power-hungry, memory-hungry, bloated, security nightmare. Requiring JavaScript for basic functionality (that was available not that long ago!) is simply hostile.
      - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
        Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem.
        httpsterio 6y ago
        > Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem. Assuming you have a new enough device. My 300€ android from 2017 is essentially unusable as it can't run JS well enough any longer.
        hombre_fatal 6y ago
        That doesn't make sense except for a few heavy applications of JS like a resource-intensive web game which is obviously a niche outside of general statements about the internet. Your 2017 Android isn't unusable because it can't run AJAX and $(dropdown).toggle() fast enough. Maybe it's not as fast as your laptop.
        pferde 6y ago
        The issue here is that nowadays "heavy applications of JS" are quite common on blogs, news websites and other "definitely not web applications"-type of websites. With JS enabled, I sometimes see simple mousewheel scrolling slow down or become choppy, or spiking CPU usage for a second or two. Simple scrolling of content that is already rendered and is not moving. And often, the same site with JS disabled scrolls smoothly (or completely fails to load, it's a crapshoot, really).
        hshshs2 6y ago
        this is hyperbolic drivel, I use an older and cheaper android phone daily and it’s just fine... just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it doesn’t work
        watwut 6y ago
        I have even older android phone and js runs fine.
- userbinator 6y ago
  "Standards" written by the same groups who want to control every aspect of your online life by shoving JS down everyone's throat? Of course they'll redefine "accessibility" to further their goals...
  - bluefox 6y ago
    It wasn't always like this. Look at WCAG version 1.0 [0] section 6.3. It's very sensible advice. Then through the magic of "Web 2.0" and bigco work on "Accessible Rich Internet Applications" the advice was made to disappear [1]. Nowadays when you mention the issue on the web, instead of trying to understand and imagine low-powered devices, limited browsers, restricted environments, or maybe just security-concious people who are effectively disabled by this "Web 2.0" bullshit, people claim that you're using the term "accessibility" wrong. [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
    - sellyme 6y ago
      Note the title of that section: > Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies are not supported or are turned off. Makes perfect sense to put JS in there in 1999, but it can hardly be considered a "newer technology" now.
      - bluefox 6y ago
        I wonder what makes people so eager to push back on such a simple request, to make basic functionality available without JavaScript. In GitHub's case, they only recently screwed it up in a major way, so surely it shouldn't be a big deal to add back the functionality? Is it "frontend programmers" feeling hurt? Or business types who think it hurts their telemetry channels? Do their salaries depend on it? Or perhaps it's just people who just need to disapprove of someone else's preferences? It's a simple request. Yes, more than 99% of your users use JavaScript, are not blind or deaf, have reasonably fast links, powerful machines, large enough screens, don't mind updating their browser every week (very important! security matters _so much_ when you regularly run arbitrary code), etc. So I'm in the 1%... why do so many people feel such a strong need to tell me this issue of mine is a non-issue for everybody else?

Accessibility doesn't really mean catering to people who choose to disable JS in their browser. There's whole set of standards for providing accessibility with dynamic web https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/ https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/aria/

bluefox 6y ago
Says you.
- viraptor 6y ago
  And every common description of web accessibility. From WAI to Wikipedia to common courses. I'm not saying it's good design or the right direction for GitHub. Just that accessibility is important and disabling-js is not really it. Specifically: disabling JS - your choice; having a disability - not your choice.
  - bluefox 6y ago
    In my case, yes, it is by choice. But do you think everyone has a choice? JavaScript is a power-hungry, memory-hungry, bloated, security nightmare. Requiring JavaScript for basic functionality (that was available not that long ago!) is simply hostile.
    - zaptheimpaler 6y ago
      Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem.
      - httpsterio 6y ago
        > Yes most consumer devices run the same 3 browsers all of which run Javascript just fine. I get you don't like it, but that doesn't mean its an accessibility problem. Assuming you have a new enough device. My 300€ android from 2017 is essentially unusable as it can't run JS well enough any longer.
        hombre_fatal 6y ago
        That doesn't make sense except for a few heavy applications of JS like a resource-intensive web game which is obviously a niche outside of general statements about the internet. Your 2017 Android isn't unusable because it can't run AJAX and $(dropdown).toggle() fast enough. Maybe it's not as fast as your laptop.
        pferde 6y ago
        The issue here is that nowadays "heavy applications of JS" are quite common on blogs, news websites and other "definitely not web applications"-type of websites. With JS enabled, I sometimes see simple mousewheel scrolling slow down or become choppy, or spiking CPU usage for a second or two. Simple scrolling of content that is already rendered and is not moving. And often, the same site with JS disabled scrolls smoothly (or completely fails to load, it's a crapshoot, really).
        hshshs2 6y ago
        this is hyperbolic drivel, I use an older and cheaper android phone daily and it’s just fine... just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it doesn’t work
        watwut 6y ago
        I have even older android phone and js runs fine.
userbinator 6y ago
"Standards" written by the same groups who want to control every aspect of your online life by shoving JS down everyone's throat? Of course they'll redefine "accessibility" to further their goals...
- bluefox 6y ago
  It wasn't always like this. Look at WCAG version 1.0 [0] section 6.3. It's very sensible advice. Then through the magic of "Web 2.0" and bigco work on "Accessible Rich Internet Applications" the advice was made to disappear [1]. Nowadays when you mention the issue on the web, instead of trying to understand and imagine low-powered devices, limited browsers, restricted environments, or maybe just security-concious people who are effectively disabled by this "Web 2.0" bullshit, people claim that you're using the term "accessibility" wrong. [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/ https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
  - sellyme 6y ago
    Note the title of that section: > Ensure that pages are accessible even when newer technologies are not supported or are turned off. Makes perfect sense to put JS in there in 1999, but it can hardly be considered a "newer technology" now.
    - bluefox 6y ago
      I wonder what makes people so eager to push back on such a simple request, to make basic functionality available without JavaScript. In GitHub's case, they only recently screwed it up in a major way, so surely it shouldn't be a big deal to add back the functionality? Is it "frontend programmers" feeling hurt? Or business types who think it hurts their telemetry channels? Do their salaries depend on it? Or perhaps it's just people who just need to disapprove of someone else's preferences? It's a simple request. Yes, more than 99% of your users use JavaScript, are not blind or deaf, have reasonably fast links, powerful machines, large enough screens, don't mind updating their browser every week (very important! security matters _so much_ when you regularly run arbitrary code), etc. So I'm in the 1%... why do so many people feel such a strong need to tell me this issue of mine is a non-issue for everybody else?