2 ms·
I admit that I haven't disabled Javascript in a long time (and haven't used NoScript), so things might be better now. My impression was that it fails silently w
by ericd 15y ago
I admit that I haven't disabled Javascript in a long time (and haven't used NoScript), so things might be better now. My impression was that it fails silently where JS is required, but this may not be true. Also, I'm coming at this from the perspective of someone who writes web apps. I'm not talking about uses like the shitty window dressing the parent was talking about.
But no, it's not bad web development practice to ignore the tiny percentage of people who don't have javascript enabled, at least when writing a web app - in fact, ignoring that segment of the population frees you to do wonderful things! Things that aren't possible with straight HTML.
Trying to make things work well for those without JS enabled is like Microsoft's trying to make their new OS software compatible all the way back to DOS, and having to make all sorts of unfortunate design decisions as a result. I would much rather make my website awesome for 95% of potential users and leverage the full power of JS than make it mediocre and usable by 100%. It's a choice, and one that I happily make.
I think more and more web developers will be making that choice in the coming years (not the ones with content sites, maybe, but who knows). That's what I meant when I said they'd start ignoring you.