3 ms·

I am so torn about this. On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be

I am so torn about this. On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content. On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements. I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Smudge 12y ago
As someone who also enjoys building rich interactions as well, I find that it's just a matter of understanding the trade-offs. Requiring Javascript support is sort of like relying heavily on the latest HTML or CSS features (a recent example: WebRTC). I have to consider what happens in browsers where the feature is unsupported or disabled, and if I'm okay with narrowing those visitors out of my userbase, then I move forward. Otherwise I make sure that something is in place for them to fall-back on. Javascript is a bit tricker than, say, the fancier CSS selectors, because I often rely on Javascript for polyfills/webshims, etc, and you can't polyfill a lack of Javascript. But when I can I still make use of that old "progressive enhancement" idea by starting with the basic HTML/CSS elements required to make a feature work, and then enhancing it with Javascript and more modern styling. It doesn't work everywhere, and certainly not in cases where most of the work is done client-side, but I still get plenty of miles out of that technique.