4 ms·
I am surely not the only one using noscript. To me, the interlaced image demo looks like this: http://imgur.com/NsVvgEZ http://imgur.com/NsVvgEZ - now I conced
by iSnow 12y ago
I am surely not the only one using noscript.
To me, the interlaced image demo looks like this: http://imgur.com/NsVvgEZ http://imgur.com/NsVvgEZ - now I concede that most people do not use script blocking tools, but quite a lot do. Ruining the user-experience of your own site for some cheesy protection scheme seems like a really bad idea to me.
Besides: what is keeping me from taking several screen shots (JS enabled of course) and then overlaying them in Photoshop?
- xanderstrike 12y agoI don't think web developers are under any obligation to provide support for people who selectively disable portions of the page they built. If you want to turn off javascript, downloading images, the color blue, etc, that's your right, but you can't comment on the user experience when you've deliberately muddled with it.
- pyrocat 12y agoThere are lots of arguments for supporting users who have javascript turned off, accessibility and SEO being two of the more common ones. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/149021/should-i-still-make-my-site-work-in-non-javascript-capable-browsers http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/149021/should...