3 ms·
Progressive enhancement is a luxury, and not everyone can afford it. It vastly increases your test surfaces, and requires multiple designs for every page/featu
by rblatz 13y ago
Progressive enhancement is a luxury, and not everyone can afford it. It vastly increases your test surfaces, and requires multiple designs for every page/feature.
If I'm trying to get a product out and I can reach 99% of my audience by assuming they have JS enabled, then I'm going to do that. I'm not going to spend 2x as long (at least) to reach that extra 1%.
- jaffathecake 13y agoYou've misrepresenting progressive enhancement as "for people with JS disabled". I guess you didn't get past the first paragraph of the article? Progressive enhancement actually decreases your testing surfaces by moving more logic to the server which is under your control, whereas the clients are running a variety of different implementations.
- romaniv 13y agoProgressive enhancement is a luxury, and not everyone can afford it. It vastly increases your test surfaces, and requires multiple designs for every page/feature. Only if you're doing it wrong. (I.e. if you re-implement planned JS functionality in HTML, which sounds like what you're describing.) Progressive enhancement done right starts with a fully functional prototype of the application done in HTML. Then you enhance your workflow and performance with JavaScript. Enhance, not re-implement. One big advantage of PE is that it encourages semantic use of HTML, which allows for declarative and reusable JS libraries. Every single person I've met who said it's "impossible" or "too expensive" never really tried. You don't sound like you've ever really tried it either.