3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.