5 ms·

Especially with Javascript off ... it's white ,empty and beautifull , I learned nothing about what the framework was about.

by camus 13y ago

sergiotapia 13y ago
Then turn it on. Why are you browsing the web with JS off in 2013? Do you want web developers to make _two_ sites, one for the 99% using JS and another for the Stallman's out there using lynx for browsing? /rant
- awavering 13y ago
  No, he wants it to work without JS, like any site should. Developers should build one site, and use JS for progressive enhancement.
  - randallsquared 13y ago
    While this used to be the common wisdom, it's not clear to me that it should still be. Designing a site which smoothly gains features as your browser does seems ideal, but often takes half again as long. Doing that for the tiny percentage of people who browse with JS off seems perverse when most of the modern web is broken or invisible to them anyway.
    - reustle 13y ago
      The most common reason discussed was screen readers, which can now parse JS powered sites just fine.
      - bphogan 13y ago
        "just fine" is not even close to true. Developers have to code it right or it doesn't work right. JavaScript-based sites are as accessible as Flash-based sites - the developer has to know how to make it accessible, or it isn't.
        jonknee 13y ago
        > JavaScript-based sites are as accessible as Flash-based sites - the developer has to know how to make it accessible, or it isn't. How is that the case? The text is on the screen like any other website would be. It's not an image or in a binary format like it would be with Flash.
        bphogan 13y ago
        Screen readers can read text in Flash movies if it's bade available as text. and with JavaScript, if it's injected after page load, rather than during, the screen reader may not get notified that the page has changed, so it doesn't know to read it. This is what WAI-ARIA and other things are about. Thankfully JAWS and WindowEyes have free trials, and NVDA is free, so we can actually test things instead of talking about them on HN.
    - matthewmacleod 13y ago
      It really doesn't take that long. Sure, a modern web application, or a site with lots of interactivity, is never going to work without JS. But this is some static content on a page; it would not be hard to make this work without it. Although the time would probably be better spent optimising the page somewhat. 3MB of assets and 85 HTTP requests (including 24 individual stylesheets!) makes for an unpleasant experience.
  - ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
    Not for the kind of applications that this framework is designed to build, so that statement is bound to attract a lot of crows.
  - Diamons 13y ago
    Welcome to 2013, where people want to hold us back with their 90's browsing habits.
    - dreen 13y ago
      JS blocking does not mean "BAN ALL JAVASCRIPT GRRRR" it means "I will decide which sites can run code on my computer". So if you have a web app - a page that needs to run code to provide its value - you have to let it do that. But if you have a document that is strictly informative then REQUIRING that you run some code just to read some text is simply counter-intuitive. A document shouldn't need to run code to provide its value, NOR SHOULD IT DO SO TO LOOK NICE.
  - mistercow 13y ago
    This is a strange definition of "should". If 2% of your users are browsing with JS turned off, "should" you really spend valuable time maintaining the no-JS path at the expense of working on how the site works for the other 98%?
    - bphogan 13y ago
      You should never have to develop two paths. Web development boils down to forms that post and links that get. It's not difficult to make all that work and then apply JS on top to intercept things. But it's getting harder to do that as we embrace frameworks we don't understand that do it all for us.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        When you put JS on top of it to intercept, you are creating two paths. That may be easier than a totally separate code base, or maybe not (I have seen compelling arguments either way), but it still boils down to a different code path in terms of potential for different bugs, different cross-browser issues, and more testing. In addition, developing that way (instead of with JS in mind) also has a cost which in the end means that you are sacrificing resources developing for those 2% instead of the other 98%. Regardless of whether that approach leads to an easier situation in terms of maintaining JS vs. non-JS, it certainly does not lead to an easier situation than ignoring non-JS altogether.
  - jongold 13y ago
    It's a site for a JavaScript framework — that's like saying Dribbble should work with images disabled.
    - WayneDB 13y ago
      Dribble does work with images disabled though, as well it should.
  - jonknee 13y ago
    Why should any site work without JS? Especially the site for a front-end JS framework. Are you similarly angry when a photo gallery doesn't work without images turned on? Or when a video site doesn't work when you disallow video from playing?
    - bphogan 13y ago
      Those images better have alternative descriptions, and that video better have a transcript.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        So you would rather a video weren't posted at all than that it be posted without a transcript?
        WayneDB 13y ago
        A blind person might. A government agency would rather not post a video to it's own site without a transcript (Section 508). Many people would. For me it depends on the video. I often would rather read the transcript than watch. So yeah, it'd be better for me that the video wasn't even posted so I wouldn't have to waste my time searching for a transcript that didn't exist.
        bphogan 13y ago
        Yes, honestly, because lots of times I just don't have headphones and don't want to disturb folks around me. But other times I can read faster than I can watch the video. If you made the video with care, then you probably already have a script you used. If you didn't, https://castingwords.com/ https://castingwords.com/ is really, really cheap and does a good job.
  - camus 13y ago
    thanks awavering ,it's hard to be surrounded by Javascript fanatics when the point is just to be able to read a doc about a framework. A txt file should be sufficient but no, today developers want to get fancy and throw at you every stunt they can pull ...
    - bacongobbler 13y ago
      You can always read the README on GitHub. no markup there. https://raw.github.com/balderdashy/sails/master/README.md https://raw.github.com/balderdashy/sails/master/README.md
  - kayoone 13y ago
    there is a reason why the option to turn JS off has been removed from Firefox 23. Javascript is a big part of todays web. Better spend your time working on your JS powered App rather than to make it work for 1% who have turned it off.

Especially with Javascript off ... it's white ,empty and beautifull , I learned nothing about what the framework was about.

by camus 13y ago

Especially with Javascript off ... it's white ,empty and beautifull , I learned nothing about what the framework was about.

sergiotapia 13y ago

Then turn it on. Why are you browsing the web with JS off in 2013? Do you want web developers to make _two_ sites, one for the 99% using JS and another for the Stallman's out there using lynx for browsing? /rant

awavering 13y ago
No, he wants it to work without JS, like any site should. Developers should build one site, and use JS for progressive enhancement.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  While this used to be the common wisdom, it's not clear to me that it should still be. Designing a site which smoothly gains features as your browser does seems ideal, but often takes half again as long. Doing that for the tiny percentage of people who browse with JS off seems perverse when most of the modern web is broken or invisible to them anyway.
  - reustle 13y ago
    The most common reason discussed was screen readers, which can now parse JS powered sites just fine.
    - bphogan 13y ago
      "just fine" is not even close to true. Developers have to code it right or it doesn't work right. JavaScript-based sites are as accessible as Flash-based sites - the developer has to know how to make it accessible, or it isn't.
      - jonknee 13y ago
        > JavaScript-based sites are as accessible as Flash-based sites - the developer has to know how to make it accessible, or it isn't. How is that the case? The text is on the screen like any other website would be. It's not an image or in a binary format like it would be with Flash.
        bphogan 13y ago
        Screen readers can read text in Flash movies if it's bade available as text. and with JavaScript, if it's injected after page load, rather than during, the screen reader may not get notified that the page has changed, so it doesn't know to read it. This is what WAI-ARIA and other things are about. Thankfully JAWS and WindowEyes have free trials, and NVDA is free, so we can actually test things instead of talking about them on HN.
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    It really doesn't take that long. Sure, a modern web application, or a site with lots of interactivity, is never going to work without JS. But this is some static content on a page; it would not be hard to make this work without it. Although the time would probably be better spent optimising the page somewhat. 3MB of assets and 85 HTTP requests (including 24 individual stylesheets!) makes for an unpleasant experience.
- ulisesrmzroche 13y ago
  Not for the kind of applications that this framework is designed to build, so that statement is bound to attract a lot of crows.
- Diamons 13y ago
  Welcome to 2013, where people want to hold us back with their 90's browsing habits.
  - dreen 13y ago
    JS blocking does not mean "BAN ALL JAVASCRIPT GRRRR" it means "I will decide which sites can run code on my computer". So if you have a web app - a page that needs to run code to provide its value - you have to let it do that. But if you have a document that is strictly informative then REQUIRING that you run some code just to read some text is simply counter-intuitive. A document shouldn't need to run code to provide its value, NOR SHOULD IT DO SO TO LOOK NICE.
- mistercow 13y ago
  This is a strange definition of "should". If 2% of your users are browsing with JS turned off, "should" you really spend valuable time maintaining the no-JS path at the expense of working on how the site works for the other 98%?
  - bphogan 13y ago
    You should never have to develop two paths. Web development boils down to forms that post and links that get. It's not difficult to make all that work and then apply JS on top to intercept things. But it's getting harder to do that as we embrace frameworks we don't understand that do it all for us.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      When you put JS on top of it to intercept, you are creating two paths. That may be easier than a totally separate code base, or maybe not (I have seen compelling arguments either way), but it still boils down to a different code path in terms of potential for different bugs, different cross-browser issues, and more testing. In addition, developing that way (instead of with JS in mind) also has a cost which in the end means that you are sacrificing resources developing for those 2% instead of the other 98%. Regardless of whether that approach leads to an easier situation in terms of maintaining JS vs. non-JS, it certainly does not lead to an easier situation than ignoring non-JS altogether.
- jongold 13y ago
  It's a site for a JavaScript framework — that's like saying Dribbble should work with images disabled.
  - WayneDB 13y ago
    Dribble does work with images disabled though, as well it should.
- jonknee 13y ago
  Why should any site work without JS? Especially the site for a front-end JS framework. Are you similarly angry when a photo gallery doesn't work without images turned on? Or when a video site doesn't work when you disallow video from playing?
  - bphogan 13y ago
    Those images better have alternative descriptions, and that video better have a transcript.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      So you would rather a video weren't posted at all than that it be posted without a transcript?
      - WayneDB 13y ago
        A blind person might. A government agency would rather not post a video to it's own site without a transcript (Section 508). Many people would. For me it depends on the video. I often would rather read the transcript than watch. So yeah, it'd be better for me that the video wasn't even posted so I wouldn't have to waste my time searching for a transcript that didn't exist.
      - bphogan 13y ago
        Yes, honestly, because lots of times I just don't have headphones and don't want to disturb folks around me. But other times I can read faster than I can watch the video. If you made the video with care, then you probably already have a script you used. If you didn't, https://castingwords.com/ https://castingwords.com/ is really, really cheap and does a good job.
- camus 13y ago
  thanks awavering ,it's hard to be surrounded by Javascript fanatics when the point is just to be able to read a doc about a framework. A txt file should be sufficient but no, today developers want to get fancy and throw at you every stunt they can pull ...
  - bacongobbler 13y ago
    You can always read the README on GitHub. no markup there. https://raw.github.com/balderdashy/sails/master/README.md https://raw.github.com/balderdashy/sails/master/README.md
- kayoone 13y ago
  there is a reason why the option to turn JS off has been removed from Firefox 23. Javascript is a big part of todays web. Better spend your time working on your JS powered App rather than to make it work for 1% who have turned it off.