3 ms·
> Of course so does the creator of the site, I find it very debatable that putting information on the internet does not come with associated mandatory respons
by jcelerier 6y ago
> Of course so does the creator of the site,
I find it very debatable that putting information on the internet does not come with associated mandatory responsibilities
- josephg 6y agoI agree. There are things websites shouldn’t do - like non-consentually collecting and selling user data. Asking users to send private details over unencrypted http. Being inaccessible to screen readers. That sort of thing. Having content that requires javascript? Eeehhhhhh. When static content like blog posts and news articles require JS it’s annoying. But for a little game like this the dev’s choice makes sense. Losing a few % of their audience is a reasonable trade in exchange for not needing to implement the whole thing twice. It’s really hard to get worked up about server side rendering for toys like this. I suggest you pick your battles differently. This is a silly hill to die on.
- dspillett 6y agoWhat responsibility are you wanting the site to be held to here? Accessibility could be a valid concern, though many accessibility tools cope with common JS patterns so if your concern really is accessibility (rather than "jcelerier is entitled to have all content without running JS") then please show what you think the problem is there.