5 ms·

Dear everyone: Might you please make use of the noscript functionality provided to you? Many people like myself do not let arbitrary websites run javascript on

Dear everyone: Might you please make use of the noscript functionality provided to you? Many people like myself do not let arbitrary websites run javascript on their machines. Without the use of noscript tags, as is the case here, I am met with an entirely blank page. Had there been something there, something describing what I'm missing and how good it is, I very likely would have enabled js temporarily. But there wasn't, and I didn't. Very best regards, ol

lisper 14y ago
I don't even have Javascript disabled and I still got a blank page (running Safari 5.1.7).
lobo_tuerto 14y ago
I think a blank page is the new noscript.
joshdotsmith 14y ago
There's an awful lot of work involved in graceful degradation, which I'm sure you know. Will a noscript tag that tells you have JavaScript disabled and that you're missing out on a richer web experience really convert you? The problem here is that "many people" is < 1.6% as of 2010; I'm guessing the number's only dropped since. Noscript is really only useful for telling people that they need JavaScript enabled to use the site in case they don't realize they've accidentally disabled its use.
- obituary_latte 14y ago
  >Will a noscript tag that tells you have JavaScript disabled and that you're missing out on a richer web experience really convert you? No. But if it tells me what the content is, or the point of, or really any decent info on what I'm missing, I usually do. In the case of HN links, I always do. I'm not sure where you got the < 1.6% figure -- I won't argue with it -- but for a startup, that might be a huge number of people. Maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know.
- toni 14y ago
  How hard is it to put a static image inside a noscript tag with some candy fluff about the great product I'm missing? If anything, they will have my respect.
freehunter 14y ago
Dear noscript users: You chose to break the website. It was designed to be used the way it was written. Javascript is a basic part of the Internet. Their site won't work without HTML enabled either. Welcome to 1994, Everyone.
- obituary_latte 14y ago
  Ok. Lets hope those with accessibility issues (screen-readers, etc), people with constrained systems (old, corporate, etc), and whoever else might not be able or willing to use js can figure something out then. Oh, they have! They won't visit your site. Cool!
  - thoughtpalette 14y ago
    I get the accessibility point, but the html should still be screen readable with js turned off. Regardless, it depends on your target users. I'm not going to worry about js turned off for a interactive rich site OR a multitude of other use cases.
  - twerquie 14y ago
    Screen readers have no problem reading javascript-rendered content. A corporate environment that disables javascript may as well block port 80 as well. I agree with others who point out that js is as vital as html and css to rendering a page.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    With 98% of screen reader users having Javascript enabled [1], I'm willing to bet it's not really an issue for them. I'm then left wondering who these people are that have daily-use systems so old that they cannot run Javascript in their browser, and why they are such an important market. [1] http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript
    - obituary_latte 14y ago
      >I'm then left wondering... Stop. Your mind is made up. You don't want or care if people without javascript can see your stuff - fair enough.
greghinch 14y ago
Sorry, you're going to lose on this one. It's basic cost/benefit ratio from the business' perspective. The cost and time of developing and maintain an alternate noscript version is almost never going to be worth it for the % of their customer base the people not running Javascript represent. Same reason ARIA loses out in most startups.
- obituary_latte 14y ago
  I'm not at all saying everyone should write a full-blown non-js version of the site. I'm saying it would be nice, and might garner more traffic if there were some content explaining the sites' mission.

lisper 14y ago

I don't even have Javascript disabled and I still got a blank page (running Safari 5.1.7).

lobo_tuerto 14y ago

I think a blank page is the new noscript.

joshdotsmith 14y ago

There's an awful lot of work involved in graceful degradation, which I'm sure you know. Will a noscript tag that tells you have JavaScript disabled and that you're missing out on a richer web experience really convert you? The problem here is that "many people" is < 1.6% as of 2010; I'm guessing the number's only dropped since. Noscript is really only useful for telling people that they need JavaScript enabled to use the site in case they don't realize they've accidentally disabled its use.

obituary_latte 14y ago
>Will a noscript tag that tells you have JavaScript disabled and that you're missing out on a richer web experience really convert you? No. But if it tells me what the content is, or the point of, or really any decent info on what I'm missing, I usually do. In the case of HN links, I always do. I'm not sure where you got the < 1.6% figure -- I won't argue with it -- but for a startup, that might be a huge number of people. Maybe it doesn't matter. I don't know.
toni 14y ago
How hard is it to put a static image inside a noscript tag with some candy fluff about the great product I'm missing? If anything, they will have my respect.

freehunter 14y ago

Dear noscript users: You chose to break the website. It was designed to be used the way it was written. Javascript is a basic part of the Internet. Their site won't work without HTML enabled either. Welcome to 1994, Everyone.

obituary_latte 14y ago
Ok. Lets hope those with accessibility issues (screen-readers, etc), people with constrained systems (old, corporate, etc), and whoever else might not be able or willing to use js can figure something out then. Oh, they have! They won't visit your site. Cool!
- thoughtpalette 14y ago
  I get the accessibility point, but the html should still be screen readable with js turned off. Regardless, it depends on your target users. I'm not going to worry about js turned off for a interactive rich site OR a multitude of other use cases.
- twerquie 14y ago
  Screen readers have no problem reading javascript-rendered content. A corporate environment that disables javascript may as well block port 80 as well. I agree with others who point out that js is as vital as html and css to rendering a page.
- freehunter 14y ago
  With 98% of screen reader users having Javascript enabled [1], I'm willing to bet it's not really an issue for them. I'm then left wondering who these people are that have daily-use systems so old that they cannot run Javascript in their browser, and why they are such an important market. [1] http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey3/#javascript
  - obituary_latte 14y ago
    >I'm then left wondering... Stop. Your mind is made up. You don't want or care if people without javascript can see your stuff - fair enough.

greghinch 14y ago

Sorry, you're going to lose on this one. It's basic cost/benefit ratio from the business' perspective. The cost and time of developing and maintain an alternate noscript version is almost never going to be worth it for the % of their customer base the people not running Javascript represent. Same reason ARIA loses out in most startups.

obituary_latte 14y ago
I'm not at all saying everyone should write a full-blown non-js version of the site. I'm saying it would be nice, and might garner more traffic if there were some content explaining the sites' mission.