2 ms·

You're right, "utter failure" might be taking things too far. "Consider the target audience of this. It'll be more technically inclined people. It's again safe

You're right, "utter failure" might be taking things too far. "Consider the target audience of this. It'll be more technically inclined people. It's again safe to assume these people will mostly have JS enabled." I disagree with that sentiment completely. The target audience for this is people who're most likely to be (sensibly, imo) running with NoScript or with JS completely off. Given that, and given the site is implementing a function that doesn't require JS /at all/, to not even have the page throw an error message is pretty lousy in my books.

jayflux 14y ago
"The target audience for this is people who're most likely to be (sensibly, imo) running with NoScript or with JS completely off." Absolute rubbish I work in a huge place that holds almost 2000 developers ranging in many different languages, skillsets and areas. I've yet to meet 1 who surfs with JS switched off. Maybe this was the case in the early 2000s, but certainly not now. Get with the times.