3 ms·

> How will you handle users who have javascript disabled? They won't/can't. Their only real options are to fallback to either the "text" field or the "numeric"

> How will you handle users who have javascript disabled? They won't/can't. Their only real options are to fallback to either the "text" field or the "numeric" field. > Why reinvent the wheel? Why not fix whatever problem you have with numeric input? JS devs will prioritize chasing after their ideal UIX long before they consider things like JS being disabled, screen readers, ARIA tags, cross-platform compatibility, etc. There's countless replacements for long-supported HTML input fields that still get active development: date pickers, numeric inputs, sliders, you name it. If it exists in the base W3C spec someone has likely reinvented the wheel for every purpose from pixel-perfect skeuomorphism, to aggressive input masking, to "instant feedback," to vaguely claiming "you cannot trust the number input" - the list goes on and on. --- OP if you're reading this - I hope you're considering JS being disabled (graceful + functional fallbacks), ARIA, aggressive cross-platform testing, and testing with real screen readers. If you aren't, this is not an accessible service.

padseeker 4y ago
You cannot make a webpage that has dynamic interactions and responds the way a desktop application does WITHOUT Javascript unless you reload the page AFTER EVERY INTERACTION, and the page reload screen blip is visually disorienting. folkhack I'm reading this, I've done quite a bit to address accessibility and will continue to do so. But disabling JS because not going to happen. The whole thing is built with React. And to make a comment like that is incredibly myopic and egocentric as if NOTHING ELSE MATTERS except javascript being disabled. What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable?
- peterangular 4y ago
  > What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable? We're conversing on HN... a site that has specifically avoided UIX overhauls to maintain the simplicity and functionality of the forum. This site uses absolutely minimal JS, and although I've trusted HN to run JS I still have it disabled for the majority of the web. Many, many people still have a foot in the "no-JS" world for many reasons: accessibility, security, tracking, site load time, non-ideal geographic network conditions. You will find many people here who browse no-JS by default. Yes - it is clearly a minority of users who browse no-JS but it is absolutely still a thing in 2022. --- > page reload screen blip is visually disorienting I don't find this to be true. I think it's a difference between FE developers where many of us are fine with the traditional way the web works vs. trying to abstract it all into a SPA-like experience. I just don't find a page-to-page interaction to be "visually disorienting," and, neither do my users. Specifically, for forms I've learned to make them as-bullet-proof as humanly possible to the point of sometimes ensuring they use with a traditional multipart POST with JS disabled... Historically, I've had to work in industries like US higher education which has very specific regulations in regards to accessibility. I understand that many experience-based form solutions like Typeform, Jotform, etc do not do this. --- Also - just want to address your consistent use of caps in comments here. As-per HN community guidelines: > Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized. I've fallen for this one myself, not trying to be pedantic - just informing.
  - spoils19 4y ago
    > Yes - it is clearly a minority of users who browse no-JS but it is absolutely still a thing in 2022. I would disagree with this. The majority I've users I've talked to are firmly no-JS.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable? The world where people can be blind or deaf so a fancy javascript-powered UX does nothing except waste CPU cycles. The world where I want a website to be as plain as possible because what you see on your screen isn't what I want to see on my screen. The world where javascript is a vector to attack users and steal data. The world where client-side input validation is, at best, a pointless because you still need to validate input on the server too. There are many reasons to disable javascript. What world of realism are you living in where you completely dismiss peoples' valid reasons for disabling javascript?

padseeker 4y ago

You cannot make a webpage that has dynamic interactions and responds the way a desktop application does WITHOUT Javascript unless you reload the page AFTER EVERY INTERACTION, and the page reload screen blip is visually disorienting. folkhack I'm reading this, I've done quite a bit to address accessibility and will continue to do so. But disabling JS because not going to happen. The whole thing is built with React. And to make a comment like that is incredibly myopic and egocentric as if NOTHING ELSE MATTERS except javascript being disabled. What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable?

peterangular 4y ago
> What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable? We're conversing on HN... a site that has specifically avoided UIX overhauls to maintain the simplicity and functionality of the forum. This site uses absolutely minimal JS, and although I've trusted HN to run JS I still have it disabled for the majority of the web. Many, many people still have a foot in the "no-JS" world for many reasons: accessibility, security, tracking, site load time, non-ideal geographic network conditions. You will find many people here who browse no-JS by default. Yes - it is clearly a minority of users who browse no-JS but it is absolutely still a thing in 2022. --- > page reload screen blip is visually disorienting I don't find this to be true. I think it's a difference between FE developers where many of us are fine with the traditional way the web works vs. trying to abstract it all into a SPA-like experience. I just don't find a page-to-page interaction to be "visually disorienting," and, neither do my users. Specifically, for forms I've learned to make them as-bullet-proof as humanly possible to the point of sometimes ensuring they use with a traditional multipart POST with JS disabled... Historically, I've had to work in industries like US higher education which has very specific regulations in regards to accessibility. I understand that many experience-based form solutions like Typeform, Jotform, etc do not do this. --- Also - just want to address your consistent use of caps in comments here. As-per HN community guidelines: > Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized. I've fallen for this one myself, not trying to be pedantic - just informing.
- spoils19 4y ago
  > Yes - it is clearly a minority of users who browse no-JS but it is absolutely still a thing in 2022. I would disagree with this. The majority I've users I've talked to are firmly no-JS.
inetknght 4y ago
> What world of technology do you live in where the terrible UX of no javascript is acceptable? The world where people can be blind or deaf so a fancy javascript-powered UX does nothing except waste CPU cycles. The world where I want a website to be as plain as possible because what you see on your screen isn't what I want to see on my screen. The world where javascript is a vector to attack users and steal data. The world where client-side input validation is, at best, a pointless because you still need to validate input on the server too. There are many reasons to disable javascript. What world of realism are you living in where you completely dismiss peoples' valid reasons for disabling javascript?