4 ms·

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 supp

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
  Screen readers support Javascript-enabled browsers these days.
  - ricardobeat 15y ago
    Accessibility is not just about screen-readers. There are hundreds of mobile browsers, consoles and a myriad of other devices with zero to broken javascript support. And even in screen-readers that do support JS, most interactions are broken unless you use proper mark-up and manage page focus and keyboard shortcuts. The point is that it's trivial to make a site like this usable without JS, with little effort. You just have to start with the right mindset.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      > There are hundreds of mobile browsers, consoles and a myriad of other devices with zero to broken javascript support. These days, both of the major mobile browsers use WebKit and have great JavaScript support, though they may not support bleeding-edge browser functionality quite yet (for which all non-demo sites definitely need fallbacks). The unofficial mobile browsers have great JavaScript too. Consoles have decent browsers with decent JavaScript, and in any case not all sites need to expect console browsers as a remotely common case. You have to draw the line somewhere, and not all sites need to support Lynx, Links, or Mosaic. I certainly agree that having decent fallbacks for a site like this doesn't require that much effort, but not all functionality supports graceful degradation. These days, browsing without JavaScript seems less likely to indicate an older browser, and more likely to indicate a user with JavaScript intentionally disabled using something like NoScript. That user may get righteously offended that a document would dare to run code on their system, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. All web features tend to follow a three-step lifecycle: too new to use at all except for demos, stable enough to use with fallbacks for older browsers, universal enough to use without fallbacks. Depending on your site and your target audience, basic JavaScript may fall in the second or the third category.

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
Screen readers support Javascript-enabled browsers these days.
- ricardobeat 15y ago
  Accessibility is not just about screen-readers. There are hundreds of mobile browsers, consoles and a myriad of other devices with zero to broken javascript support. And even in screen-readers that do support JS, most interactions are broken unless you use proper mark-up and manage page focus and keyboard shortcuts. The point is that it's trivial to make a site like this usable without JS, with little effort. You just have to start with the right mindset.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    > There are hundreds of mobile browsers, consoles and a myriad of other devices with zero to broken javascript support. These days, both of the major mobile browsers use WebKit and have great JavaScript support, though they may not support bleeding-edge browser functionality quite yet (for which all non-demo sites definitely need fallbacks). The unofficial mobile browsers have great JavaScript too. Consoles have decent browsers with decent JavaScript, and in any case not all sites need to expect console browsers as a remotely common case. You have to draw the line somewhere, and not all sites need to support Lynx, Links, or Mosaic. I certainly agree that having decent fallbacks for a site like this doesn't require that much effort, but not all functionality supports graceful degradation. These days, browsing without JavaScript seems less likely to indicate an older browser, and more likely to indicate a user with JavaScript intentionally disabled using something like NoScript. That user may get righteously offended that a document would dare to run code on their system, but that doesn't necessarily make them right. All web features tend to follow a three-step lifecycle: too new to use at all except for demos, stable enough to use with fallbacks for older browsers, universal enough to use without fallbacks. Depending on your site and your target audience, basic JavaScript may fall in the second or the third category.