2 ms·

Yes, the Flash analogy was probably a poor one considering the ubiquity of iOS - you can no longer make the argument about not having to cater to people without

by debacle 15y ago

Yes, the Flash analogy was probably a poor one considering the ubiquity of iOS - you can no longer make the argument about not having to cater to people without Flash, because at this point there are so many of them.

chris_wot 15y ago
I think the same can be applied to requiring Javascript however. Personally, I've never seen a website that delivers content that absolutely needed it. Certainly the ones that do use it well do it to enhance the site you are browsing, but if you turn off the Javascript then you only have a slightly less full featured experience. If you can't access a website because Javascript is turned off, then I think you are overcomplicating things anyway. There are obviously cases where it is required, but as the author states, it should be pretty easy to explain why you need to enable scripting!
- bmelton 15y ago
  "Personally, I've never seen a website that delivers content that absolutely needed it." Really? Etherpad, Google Wave, Google Docs. Every HTML5 game I've ever seen. Aviary, Picnik, Picozu. etc. I generally agree with the point that most sites that present text to a screen don't absolutely NEED JS to work, but there are a myriad of apps out there that do.
  - chris_wot 15y ago
    I don't disagree with you in any way :-) these are web apps, not just plain websites with something like a commenting system. Even with these web apps, I think its best to explain why JavaScript is needed. Except for google analytics, I'm still a huge fan of Unobtrusive JavaScript, if only because it makes for cleaner site organisation and code separation.
- mirkules 15y ago
  "If you can't access a website because Javascript is turned off, then I think you are overcomplicating things anyway." Take Lifehacker as an example: http://lifehacker.com/ http://lifehacker.com/ What about their content requires JavaScript? Absolutely nothing. You have to enable scripts from three different places to see the content. The irony is that this website is called LifeHacker, for people who like to hack things (but turning off Javascript is just pure sorcery)
  - pbiggar 15y ago
    Lifehacker is a great example: - click search, it drops down a search bar without reloading the page. Fast, nice. - actually do the search - updates in place. - on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest" - ok lets read an article. Ah, selecting one loads the article into the pane, so I dont lose my place in the search on the side - lovely. - Commenting: done in line, has inline font selection, I can include a picture or URL. Very nice experience. - Oh, and 2 of my friends read lifehacker according to their Facebook plugin. Interesting - I didnt know they read that, I must mention it to them.
    - mirkules 15y ago
      -click search, it drops down a search bar without reloading the page. Fast, nice. I posit that the search bar should be static, that is, always visible. It actually took me a while to find out that I was supposed to click the little magnifying glass. - actually do the search - updates in place. Again, confusing. It wasn't immediately apparent that the search results actually displayed below the search bar. - on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest" This is a good use case for Javascript. However, if Javascript is not present why would it not default to just opening separate pages for each of the tabs? - Commenting: again, why does it need Javascript? Slashdot commenting system works just fine without Javascript, as an example. I'm not questioning WHY they are using Javascript - obviously, you are getting plenty of use from that method. I am questioning why it is necessary to have those features to view content?
      - pbiggar 15y ago
        Bullshit. For a start, I dont think we should be second guessing their design. No doubt they have the customer development, usage figures, A/B tests, design tests, etc, to know that this is right for them. But if you think a static version would be better (for most people), you're dreaming. At this point I suspect there's no point continuing the conversation - we have dramatically different world views if you think there's a comparison. So the remaining question is, should they also have a no-javascript version for the 2% of people who turn off JS? Since it costs them double the effort, I can see why they chose not to.
- kls 15y ago
  One of the big ones I can think of is that the web is becoming a system of platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc. are all platforms, when I build web application it is almost guaranteed that my app will be a JavaScript based UI that couples those platforms services into a work flow with my own platform in some novel way. The way we build apps is changing they are becoming UI's that front end the cloud where the cloud is an assortment of services that provide data and content from different sources. JavaScript is a key enabler in the new web as a platform.

by debacle 15y ago

chris_wot 15y ago

I think the same can be applied to requiring Javascript however. Personally, I've never seen a website that delivers content that absolutely needed it. Certainly the ones that do use it well do it to enhance the site you are browsing, but if you turn off the Javascript then you only have a slightly less full featured experience. If you can't access a website because Javascript is turned off, then I think you are overcomplicating things anyway. There are obviously cases where it is required, but as the author states, it should be pretty easy to explain why you need to enable scripting!

bmelton 15y ago
"Personally, I've never seen a website that delivers content that absolutely needed it." Really? Etherpad, Google Wave, Google Docs. Every HTML5 game I've ever seen. Aviary, Picnik, Picozu. etc. I generally agree with the point that most sites that present text to a screen don't absolutely NEED JS to work, but there are a myriad of apps out there that do.
- chris_wot 15y ago
  I don't disagree with you in any way :-) these are web apps, not just plain websites with something like a commenting system. Even with these web apps, I think its best to explain why JavaScript is needed. Except for google analytics, I'm still a huge fan of Unobtrusive JavaScript, if only because it makes for cleaner site organisation and code separation.
mirkules 15y ago
"If you can't access a website because Javascript is turned off, then I think you are overcomplicating things anyway." Take Lifehacker as an example: http://lifehacker.com/ http://lifehacker.com/ What about their content requires JavaScript? Absolutely nothing. You have to enable scripts from three different places to see the content. The irony is that this website is called LifeHacker, for people who like to hack things (but turning off Javascript is just pure sorcery)
- pbiggar 15y ago
  Lifehacker is a great example: - click search, it drops down a search bar without reloading the page. Fast, nice. - actually do the search - updates in place. - on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest" - ok lets read an article. Ah, selecting one loads the article into the pane, so I dont lose my place in the search on the side - lovely. - Commenting: done in line, has inline font selection, I can include a picture or URL. Very nice experience. - Oh, and 2 of my friends read lifehacker according to their Facebook plugin. Interesting - I didnt know they read that, I must mention it to them.
  - mirkules 15y ago
    -click search, it drops down a search bar without reloading the page. Fast, nice. I posit that the search bar should be static, that is, always visible. It actually took me a while to find out that I was supposed to click the little magnifying glass. - actually do the search - updates in place. Again, confusing. It wasn't immediately apparent that the search results actually displayed below the search bar. - on the sidebar, no reload for switching between "most popular" and "latest" This is a good use case for Javascript. However, if Javascript is not present why would it not default to just opening separate pages for each of the tabs? - Commenting: again, why does it need Javascript? Slashdot commenting system works just fine without Javascript, as an example. I'm not questioning WHY they are using Javascript - obviously, you are getting plenty of use from that method. I am questioning why it is necessary to have those features to view content?
    - pbiggar 15y ago
      Bullshit. For a start, I dont think we should be second guessing their design. No doubt they have the customer development, usage figures, A/B tests, design tests, etc, to know that this is right for them. But if you think a static version would be better (for most people), you're dreaming. At this point I suspect there's no point continuing the conversation - we have dramatically different world views if you think there's a comparison. So the remaining question is, should they also have a no-javascript version for the 2% of people who turn off JS? Since it costs them double the effort, I can see why they chose not to.
kls 15y ago
One of the big ones I can think of is that the web is becoming a system of platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google etc. are all platforms, when I build web application it is almost guaranteed that my app will be a JavaScript based UI that couples those platforms services into a work flow with my own platform in some novel way. The way we build apps is changing they are becoming UI's that front end the cloud where the cloud is an assortment of services that provide data and content from different sources. JavaScript is a key enabler in the new web as a platform.