3 ms·

"That’s right, you can’t even see the text box you’re supposed to type your search into. Congratulations, we just broke the Internet." No, Google broke the Int

"That’s right, you can’t even see the text box you’re supposed to type your search into. Congratulations, we just broke the Internet." No, Google broke the Internet. If they've introduced a dependency between text boxes and images (?!), that's down to them. Web interface should work via progressive enhancement such that it's perfectly possible to browse and use a site without javascript, css, or even images.

VBprogrammer 12y ago
If you want a website which works perfectly without Javascript, CSS or images feel free to pay for it. The rest of us will continue ignoring that tiny minority of people in the interest of getting real work done.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  It‘s not just the “tiny minority” (whatever that means — I‘m guessing neither of us have actual figures) of people with any of those technologies disabled that benefit from a progressive approach. I‘m not 100% idealistic on this one, but at least apportion the blame where it‘s due.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    Four years ago it was around 1% of users worldwide; I doubt that number has gone up: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistic...
  - Eiriksmal 12y ago
    Following one of the SO answer links in the sibling comment, the front UK.gov page, in 2013, had 1.1% of visitors with JS not-functioning. 0.2% of the visitors either explicitly disabled JS or were using browsers that didn't support it. 0.9% had JS, but it did not work for whatever reason. The author supposes corporate or local JS blocks or malfunctioning browser addons that effectively disable JS functionality. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...
- talmand 12y ago
  Am I to understand, based on the post you are replying to, that a client should pay extra to have a site that has a working text box while images are disabled?
  - VBprogrammer 12y ago
    No, I'm saying that very rarely is the cost of making a website degrade gracefully in this set of circumstances going to be justified economically. There may be non-economic arguments, for example making a site more accessible. However, this needs to be balanced against practical concerns. For a government service then sure they should spend the money making it accessible to everyone; for the small startup I work for the cost and maintenance overhead would cripple us. To be fair, I agree that having a text box which needs images is a little strange.
emodendroket 12y ago
That's getting to be an increasingly unreasonable proposition. With the rise of SPAs and so on you're basically asking everyone to create two versions of every Web application for a very small contingent of users (and really in the case of JavaScript it doesn't have to be an a11y barrier).
- Someone1234 12y ago
  What is an "SPA." Google doesn't even know, since I'm assuming it isn't a reference to a: > A spa is a location where mineral-rich spring water is used to give medicinal baths. Spa towns or spa resorts (including hot springs resorts) typically offer various health treatments, which are also known as balneotherapy. The belief in the curative powers of mineral waters goes back to prehistoric times.
  - emodendroket 12y ago
    "Single-page application;" i.e., a Web app that exists entirely within a single Web page and therefore is heavily reliant on JS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application

VBprogrammer 12y ago

If you want a website which works perfectly without Javascript, CSS or images feel free to pay for it. The rest of us will continue ignoring that tiny minority of people in the interest of getting real work done.

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
It‘s not just the “tiny minority” (whatever that means — I‘m guessing neither of us have actual figures) of people with any of those technologies disabled that benefit from a progressive approach. I‘m not 100% idealistic on this one, but at least apportion the blame where it‘s due.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Four years ago it was around 1% of users worldwide; I doubt that number has gone up: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-on-javascript-disabled http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistic...
- Eiriksmal 12y ago
  Following one of the SO answer links in the sibling comment, the front UK.gov page, in 2013, had 1.1% of visitors with JS not-functioning. 0.2% of the visitors either explicitly disabled JS or were using browsers that didn't support it. 0.9% had JS, but it did not work for whatever reason. The author supposes corporate or local JS blocks or malfunctioning browser addons that effectively disable JS functionality. https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missi...
talmand 12y ago
Am I to understand, based on the post you are replying to, that a client should pay extra to have a site that has a working text box while images are disabled?
- VBprogrammer 12y ago
  No, I'm saying that very rarely is the cost of making a website degrade gracefully in this set of circumstances going to be justified economically. There may be non-economic arguments, for example making a site more accessible. However, this needs to be balanced against practical concerns. For a government service then sure they should spend the money making it accessible to everyone; for the small startup I work for the cost and maintenance overhead would cripple us. To be fair, I agree that having a text box which needs images is a little strange.

emodendroket 12y ago

That's getting to be an increasingly unreasonable proposition. With the rise of SPAs and so on you're basically asking everyone to create two versions of every Web application for a very small contingent of users (and really in the case of JavaScript it doesn't have to be an a11y barrier).

Someone1234 12y ago
What is an "SPA." Google doesn't even know, since I'm assuming it isn't a reference to a: > A spa is a location where mineral-rich spring water is used to give medicinal baths. Spa towns or spa resorts (including hot springs resorts) typically offer various health treatments, which are also known as balneotherapy. The belief in the curative powers of mineral waters goes back to prehistoric times.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  "Single-page application;" i.e., a Web app that exists entirely within a single Web page and therefore is heavily reliant on JS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-page_application