3 ms·
I browse with JS switched off. I don't mind a web site using JS, if it's needed. Clearly, here it is needed. The main beef I have with this site is that when I
by mnw21cam 5y ago
I browse with JS switched off. I don't mind a web site using JS, if it's needed. Clearly, here it is needed.
The main beef I have with this site is that when I go to it with JS switched off, all I get is a message telling me to switch it on. There's no information about why I should switch it on - what will I get in return for switching it on, and what will the site take as a result of me switching it on. What am I missing by having JS switched off.
So, instead of the site just saying "JavaScript is required. Please enable it to continue." instead it should say something like "This web page contains an interactive game that requires JavaScript to function. Please enable it to continue." Then I know that there's actually something interesting being done with the JS, and not just a lazy webmaster who can't be bothered to display a blog post correctly.
- dspillett 5y agoThat is a fair point. Also for sites where JS is not required but is used to enhance interactivity a note to say that the difference is with/without JS would be useful ("without JS this site will work, but be slower due to more round-trips to the server" or "without JS this site will be less pretty") then you can choose if you care enough about the difference.