3 ms·

The truth is almost nobody cares about js being disabled anymore. Even if today you think it's an overestimating (I don't think so anymore) over few more years

by krick 12y ago

The truth is almost nobody cares about js being disabled anymore. Even if today you think it's an overestimating (I don't think so anymore) over few more years it won't be even for you. Just 2 years ago it was like "What if a customer doesn't have js enabled? We don't want to loose him just over that! Let's support both versions.", today it is already more like "No js? Weird, lol. Well, it's his own problem anyway, no reason to spend time&money on that in 2014.". When I for some reason was forced to use lynx, which I don't normally do, I was simply amazed by how smooth browsing is, it doesn't feel like the usual "internet" anymore, more like navigating your project via text editor on the local filesystem. But unfortunately as you go further than browsing ArchWiki it becomes almost unusable due to lack of static (in the sense "no js") sites support.

seanp2k2 12y ago
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/764624/how-can-you-use-javascript-in-terminal-for-w3m http://stackoverflow.com/questions/764624/how-can-you-use-ja... W3m-js is/was a thing. Also, w3m can apparently draw images inline via xterm, though I wasn't able to get this working in the ~10 minutes I tried on OSX Yosemite with X11 and xterm using the w3m from homebrew. UZBL is ok too, if you just want a minimalistic WebKit browser with vim key binds.
- krick 12y ago
  If you want vim-keybinds in your browser you can just use vimperator or pentadactyl, it's not the point here. Web without pictures/js on today's connection is almost as smooth as navigating your local file system, while "normal" browsing isn't, and you (well, me) don't even notice that before you eventually try that js-free browsing from lynx or something like that. That is, it would be if not for the fact that js-free web is a "Red Book animal" already.
chriswarbo 12y ago
> no reason to spend time&money on that in 2014 If you're considering whether to go back and change it, don't bother; you've failed. The point is to do it that way the first time, instinctively. The time&money spent writing element-inserting JS corresponds to time&money saved by not adding a bunch of links/buttons/etc. to HTML templates. If you're tied into a framework which makes the right way more difficult, then file a bug with the framework devs ;)

by krick 12y ago

seanp2k2 12y ago

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/764624/how-can-you-use-javascript-in-terminal-for-w3m http://stackoverflow.com/questions/764624/how-can-you-use-ja... W3m-js is/was a thing. Also, w3m can apparently draw images inline via xterm, though I wasn't able to get this working in the ~10 minutes I tried on OSX Yosemite with X11 and xterm using the w3m from homebrew. UZBL is ok too, if you just want a minimalistic WebKit browser with vim key binds.

krick 12y ago
If you want vim-keybinds in your browser you can just use vimperator or pentadactyl, it's not the point here. Web without pictures/js on today's connection is almost as smooth as navigating your local file system, while "normal" browsing isn't, and you (well, me) don't even notice that before you eventually try that js-free browsing from lynx or something like that. That is, it would be if not for the fact that js-free web is a "Red Book animal" already.

chriswarbo 12y ago

> no reason to spend time&money on that in 2014 If you're considering whether to go back and change it, don't bother; you've failed. The point is to do it that way the first time, instinctively. The time&money spent writing element-inserting JS corresponds to time&money saved by not adding a bunch of links/buttons/etc. to HTML templates. If you're tied into a framework which makes the right way more difficult, then file a bug with the framework devs ;)