3 ms·

Of those I only go to github. And for now it still works without javascript execution. Sites that want or have to serve everyone do not use the web as an appli

Of those I only go to github. And for now it still works without javascript execution. Sites that want or have to serve everyone do not use the web as an application because they know it doesn't work. Gov.uk and amazon.com for example went out of their way to work for all people of the world. And Gov.uk has found approximately 1 in 96 actual people do not have JS turned on[1]. For fancy businesses with other businesses as their end users you can get away with not supporting everyone. It doesn't effect their income so it doesn't matter. But the reality is that JS-application sites fail 1% of users and for actually serving everyone that 1% matters. [1] https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...

nitrogen 6y ago
And Gov.uk has found approximately 1 in 96 actual people do not have JS turned on[1]. It's challenging to convince a PM that people who block stats don't show up in their stats, but do still have money to spend. Often, a simple try/catch in the onclick handler that fires analytics events, and a quick happy path test with ublock on, is all it would take to fix a site. Well worth the 1% of extra revenue for a few minutes effort.
- edoceo 6y ago
  The math is $500 expense today for the test code. $0.01 each time the test runs and +$ for each client acquired. At $20/mo MRR it's 3 clients/year. Easily pays for itself.
- jandrese 6y ago
  I suspect that 1 in 96 figure is mostly people who have uMatrix or NoScript installed, not people who have disabled JavaScript entirely. A little judicious blocking can greatly improve browsing experience at the cost of having to set up rules for sites when you first visit them sometimes. It can be a real hassle when someone has embedded a video you want to watch and there are like 8 layers of embedded scripts from different domains necessary before you get to the actual video content.
capitainenemo 6y ago
gmail works without JS too . I use it routinely with w3m

nitrogen 6y ago

And Gov.uk has found approximately 1 in 96 actual people do not have JS turned on[1]. It's challenging to convince a PM that people who block stats don't show up in their stats, but do still have money to spend. Often, a simple try/catch in the onclick handler that fires analytics events, and a quick happy path test with ublock on, is all it would take to fix a site. Well worth the 1% of extra revenue for a few minutes effort.

edoceo 6y ago
The math is $500 expense today for the test code. $0.01 each time the test runs and +$ for each client acquired. At $20/mo MRR it's 3 clients/year. Easily pays for itself.
jandrese 6y ago
I suspect that 1 in 96 figure is mostly people who have uMatrix or NoScript installed, not people who have disabled JavaScript entirely. A little judicious blocking can greatly improve browsing experience at the cost of having to set up rules for sites when you first visit them sometimes. It can be a real hassle when someone has embedded a video you want to watch and there are like 8 layers of embedded scripts from different domains necessary before you get to the actual video content.

capitainenemo 6y ago

gmail works without JS too . I use it routinely with w3m