3 ms·
I'm going to strongly side with them. You are essentially breaking the internet. Then you're asking them to help you work around all the stuff you broke and po
by UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
I'm going to strongly side with them.
You are essentially breaking the internet. Then you're asking them to help you work around all the stuff you broke and posting a public complaint here when they tell you "no." Sorry but too bad.
I might have some sympathy if you even explained why you need to "NoScript" their site in particular. If you had accessibility issues (e.g. handicaps) I would definitely feel sympathy for your position.
NoScript rolls the web back to pre-1997 levels.
- merinid 14y agoI agree, accessibility issues aside, the web is a language, and like every other language it evolves in order to be able to express more and more complicated ideas. Design is a language which changes too. Gawker and you may not be on the same page, but asking them to deviate from the state of the art, asking people to do things like support older versions of IE, in the end just stifles progress. Going forward is one of the main principles of technological development, and sometimes we just have to leave things behind. That said, everyone is entitled to be any kind of user they want to be - and I totally respect your position, just don't think Gawker should be compelled to comply.
- dman 14y agoBut what about accessibility issues?
- 10dpd 14y agoWhat accessibility issues are you specifically referring to? All modern screen readers (such as JAWS, WindowEyes etc) work well with Javascript-enabled sites as long as appropriate standards such as ARIA are adhered to and keyboard focus is managed correctly.
- 27182818284 14y agoYes, the old JavaScript can't be used for accessibility argument is pretty dead to me. 98.6% reported to use JavaScript http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/ http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/