3 ms·
It's reasonable to expect disabling javascript to have a negative effect upon a webpage which is performing some relatively complicated function. If I was runni
by honestcoyote 13y ago
It's reasonable to expect disabling javascript to have a negative effect upon a webpage which is performing some relatively complicated function. If I was running noscript, with no whitelist, and tried to use Google Calendar, I'd expect reduced or zero functionality.
But Twitter's main purpose in life, for end users, is to display text and links. There's absolutely no reason why disabling javascript should cause a link to be inaccessible. This is a legitimate complaint.
- dubcanada 13y agoAnd websites are also not just text and links anymore. Twitter would probably have to put man hours into making what ever work for noscript, they don't just do something for no reason. But spending effort even thinking about users without javascript is in my mind a waste of effort. Anyways I agree that he should still be able to see text/link. But I turned on the site in Google Chrome, with javascript turned off... And it worked perfectly fine. He however has "noscript" which does not work that way, and does stuff preventing the site from doing normal functionality... Completely his fault.
- blub 13y agoNot a waste of effort, just one more step away from the roots of the web. If someone can't gracefully degrade images, text and links they are a failure of a web developer and have betrayed what the web should stand for.
- papsosouid 13y ago>And websites are also not just text and links anymore Twitter is. Twitter is an absolute clusterfuck technology wise, they are the prime example of doing everything wrong. Defending their idiocy does not reflect highly on you.