3 ms·
That’s a bit of a rosy take of the web of the 90’s-00’s. Plenty of sites failed to render without JS, they just had a noscript tag that said “this site requires
by phatskat 3y ago
That’s a bit of a rosy take of the web of the 90’s-00’s. Plenty of sites failed to render without JS, they just had a noscript tag that said “this site requires JavaScript”. Graceful degradation was ideal but often too much for sites that either weren’t small enough or who didn’t have the resources to implement it. If you were adding JS to a preexisting site, it was easier to do, but on a fresh build or redesign, timelines often meant some things just wouldn’t work but hopefully you could still navigate pages.
With the rise of mobile browsers, the ability for frameworks to solve cross-browser comparability, and the general acceptance that anything beyond trivial interaction required JS, catering to a tiny crowd that didn’t like having it turned on became very unimportant to most. I do agree that graceful degradation to a state that’s still functional is ideal and something I wish had stuck around.