4 ms·

This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled

by aethr 13y ago

This is my preferred use of js, providing additional functionality and usability improvements on top of things that already work perfectly well with js disabled. Users with js still get the "fuller" experience, but users who choose to disable js still have full access to the site.

kondro 13y ago
But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .
- socillion 13y ago
  If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% of people who are blind? Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.
  - btgeekboy 13y ago
    The way I understand it (and I don't claim to be an expert): yes, it will work. Modern screen readers let the browser handle the JS and related parts, and it reads the displayed text.
  - justincormack 13y ago
    Screen readers can generally cope with much use if JavaScript now.
    - dthunt 13y ago
      key word 'much'. That's like saying something 'mostly' works and therefor 'it's not a problem'.
      - justincormack 13y ago
        No, I meant it can be made to work, you of course need to test it.
- aethr 13y ago
  That depends entirely on your site and audience. Although some counter by saying that you shouldn't need to provide wheelchair ramps for the < 1% of people who are unable to use stairs. Sometimes it's not just about ROI.
  - kondro 13y ago
    JS doesn't make the web less accessible. You can choose to make your web apps using JS just as accessible as plain-old HTML, sometimes more so.
- Isofarro 13y ago
  But you have to implement this "extra functionality" already. Or, how are you dealing with situations where your JavaScript fails to reach your user's browser? How are you dealing with situations where the JavaScript arrives in the browser but doesn't execute? This "extra functionality" is the same "extra functionality" as having a safety cage designed and implemented in a car. Sure, it's just extra functionality that most people will never ever use. Hopefully. Touch wood.

by aethr 13y ago

kondro 13y ago

But developers shouldn't have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% [citation needed] of people who browse without JS .

socillion 13y ago
If it doesn't work without JS, is it going to work in a screen reader? Should developers have to implement extra functionality for the < 1% of people who are blind? Nobody is forcing developers to give a damn about accessibility, but it's a bit sad that so many have thrown graceful degradation out the window.
- btgeekboy 13y ago
  The way I understand it (and I don't claim to be an expert): yes, it will work. Modern screen readers let the browser handle the JS and related parts, and it reads the displayed text.
- justincormack 13y ago
  Screen readers can generally cope with much use if JavaScript now.
  - dthunt 13y ago
    key word 'much'. That's like saying something 'mostly' works and therefor 'it's not a problem'.
    - justincormack 13y ago
      No, I meant it can be made to work, you of course need to test it.
aethr 13y ago
That depends entirely on your site and audience. Although some counter by saying that you shouldn't need to provide wheelchair ramps for the < 1% of people who are unable to use stairs. Sometimes it's not just about ROI.
- kondro 13y ago
  JS doesn't make the web less accessible. You can choose to make your web apps using JS just as accessible as plain-old HTML, sometimes more so.
Isofarro 13y ago
But you have to implement this "extra functionality" already. Or, how are you dealing with situations where your JavaScript fails to reach your user's browser? How are you dealing with situations where the JavaScript arrives in the browser but doesn't execute? This "extra functionality" is the same "extra functionality" as having a safety cage designed and implemented in a car. Sure, it's just extra functionality that most people will never ever use. Hopefully. Touch wood.