4 ms·

Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something ot

by sedev 15y ago

Oh look, it's another site that loads nothing with JavaScript off. What is wrong with you? Progressively enhance, or gracefully degrade, or display something other than a completely blank page to non-JavaScript visitors. I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of usability.

retube 15y ago
Don't even get a blank page :) Get a "Server not found"
jgroome 15y ago
> What is wrong with you? There's got a be a more polite way to phrase that. Also, while I understand the reasons for disabling JavaScript generally, is this really something to get that upset about?
- sedev 15y ago
  "Doesn't function right without JavaScript" disabled rates a shrug - JS enables lots of cool stuff. "Displays a completely blank page without JavaScript" is - well, in this case, as others have pointed out, one of the tradeoffs made in pursuit of a 24-hour project. However, in a mature site (I'm looking at certain MSDN blogs), it's very disturbing, it's a big warning flag for "lack of attention to detail." My reactions to broken-without-JS sites spring from security, privacy, usability, and accessibility concerns. "Sites that completely break without JS" is a category that strongly correlates with "sites that have major issues in at least one of those four categories."
endtwist 15y ago
The percentage of users with Javascript disabled[1] is smaller than the percentage of users using Opera[2]. So there is nothing wrong with choosing to not support 2 out of every 100 users; that's simply a time/cost assessment. What's wrong with you? [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/ http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-... [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
- btucker 15y ago
  Which is all well and good unless users don't have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers
  - endtwist 15y ago
    Except, that's a poor argument: http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript
    - ricardobeat 15y ago
      Except that most sites don't care about providing decent clues (correct mark-up, ARIA attributes, etc) for javascript interactions, so that's also a poor argument.
  - jgroome 15y ago
    How many web developers looking up CSS reference material are using screen readers though? It's OK to develop for your target audience, right?
    - sedev 15y ago
      I admit I'm atypical here, but I do all my development work in emacs, and it's nice to have reference material that can also be accessed through emacs.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  There is something wrong - in many countries you are mandated by law to make your site accessible :) Of course this doesn't apply here, but I wanted to be dramatic. Should be piece of cake to just show the full content if javascript is off, since it is already loading all of it.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
slig 15y ago
Yeah, how the OP dares to shows us a prototype of something that he probably hacked in a couple of hours and doesn't even support the very specific user that has JS disabled by default.
slammdunc23 15y ago
The creator of this website, rgarcia, specifically said (when he posted it a couple of days ago) that it was a 24-hour project: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 Cut him some slack! I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of friendliness.
- sedev 15y ago
  That is a relevant piece of information I hadn't known. Thank you.
lightyrs 15y ago
I wish I could downvote this.
tkrajcar 15y ago
sigh

by sedev 15y ago

retube 15y ago

Don't even get a blank page :) Get a "Server not found"

jgroome 15y ago

> What is wrong with you? There's got a be a more polite way to phrase that. Also, while I understand the reasons for disabling JavaScript generally, is this really something to get that upset about?

sedev 15y ago
"Doesn't function right without JavaScript" disabled rates a shrug - JS enables lots of cool stuff. "Displays a completely blank page without JavaScript" is - well, in this case, as others have pointed out, one of the tradeoffs made in pursuit of a 24-hour project. However, in a mature site (I'm looking at certain MSDN blogs), it's very disturbing, it's a big warning flag for "lack of attention to detail." My reactions to broken-without-JS sites spring from security, privacy, usability, and accessibility concerns. "Sites that completely break without JS" is a category that strongly correlates with "sites that have major issues in at least one of those four categories."

endtwist 15y ago

The percentage of users with Javascript disabled[1] is smaller than the percentage of users using Opera[2]. So there is nothing wrong with choosing to not support 2 out of every 100 users; that's simply a time/cost assessment. What's wrong with you? [1] http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/ http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-... [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

btucker 15y ago
Which is all well and good unless users don't have a choice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_screen_readers
- endtwist 15y ago
  Except, that's a poor argument: http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript
  - ricardobeat 15y ago
    Except that most sites don't care about providing decent clues (correct mark-up, ARIA attributes, etc) for javascript interactions, so that's also a poor argument.
- jgroome 15y ago
  How many web developers looking up CSS reference material are using screen readers though? It's OK to develop for your target audience, right?
  - sedev 15y ago
    I admit I'm atypical here, but I do all my development work in emacs, and it's nice to have reference material that can also be accessed through emacs.
ricardobeat 15y ago
There is something wrong - in many countries you are mandated by law to make your site accessible :) Of course this doesn't apply here, but I wanted to be dramatic. Should be piece of cake to just show the full content if javascript is off, since it is already loading all of it.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago

slig 15y ago

Yeah, how the OP dares to shows us a prototype of something that he probably hacked in a couple of hours and doesn't even support the very specific user that has JS disabled by default.

slammdunc23 15y ago

The creator of this website, rgarcia, specifically said (when he posted it a couple of days ago) that it was a 24-hour project: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3222253 Cut him some slack! I harbor many doubts re: your competence in the realm of friendliness.

sedev 15y ago
That is a relevant piece of information I hadn't known. Thank you.

lightyrs 15y ago

I wish I could downvote this.

tkrajcar 15y ago

sigh