3 ms·
I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off, each new feature would need to keep that in mind, it w
by rodh257 14y ago
I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off, each new feature would need to keep that in mind, it would need to be designed for and UX tested. Scenarios where you wan to rely on javascript need to have a fallback, each change needs to be tested in a noscript environment.
In my opinion with the multitude of great new JS libraries (particularly knockout, backbone etc) and JS browser features we're going past it being as simple as progressively enhancing your site. If you are a startup trying to do things in a lean fashion it must be hard to justify.
- masklinn 14y ago> I think you're underestimating the amount of work that is required to cater for those with JS turned off This is highly dependent on a number of factors, mostly: * The kind of site we're talking about, if this is a real-time chat application it makes sense that it can't work without JS, if this is a company site or a presentation site for an appstore application with an embedded video and you can't make it work without JS you don't know what you're doing. * Whether this was considered from the beginning or whoever built the site just went wild with javascript without consideration. And even in the first section of the first case, if the unlogged account-less front page can't work without javascript I'll probably still think you don't know what you're doing.
- EvilTerran 14y agoThis ties back to the point of the submission -- if you can't make your site work without JS, at least tell the users with JS disabled why you need them to let yours through.
- ajuc 14y agoI meant a few hours should be plenty of time to write one paragraph about what your site does, and insert it into noscript tag on your main page.