4 ms·
I'm disappointed to see websites stack increasing amounts of JS to micro-optimize page appearance, when New York Times won't even load images below the first on
by nyanpasu64 5y ago
I'm disappointed to see websites stack increasing amounts of JS to micro-optimize page appearance, when New York Times won't even load images below the first one per article with JS disabled.
- JadeNB 5y ago> I'm disappointed to see websites stack increasing amounts of JS to micro-optimize page appearance, when New York Times won't even load images below the first one per article with JS disabled. I think this isn't a failure of technical will, but scorn for non-JS users. At least on WP—I've never tried NYT without Javascript—disabling Javascript gets you past the paywall, and I assume otherwise cripples their tracking, so they don't want you there.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago> disabling Javascript gets you past the paywall Well, this could also tell you just how few users disable Javascript. The numbers are so small, the Washington Post would rather let them read for free than update their paywall code and potentially convert them to subscribers.
- micromacrofoot 5y agomost people don’t even know what javascript is