3 ms·

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

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.

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.