4 ms·
disclaimer: not a web dev, don't really have a dog in this race. The reaction here strikes me quite a bit - talk about supporting an old web browser which has
by AlisdairO 12y ago
disclaimer: not a web dev, don't really have a dog in this race.
The reaction here strikes me quite a bit - talk about supporting an old web browser which has a small market share, and the reaction will often be that it's a waste of time. No-js users are a miniscule fraction of a typical site's audience, so why would those sites bother to support them any more than they would bother to support an old browser?
- rakoo 12y agoI believe there's a difference between not supporting an old, non-standard-compliant browser, where you must have the same functionalities but the platform is different, and not supporting users who have turned off javascript, because in this case the functionalities themselves are different. You almost have 2 different "products" in this case. Also, angry users are always the most vocal. The huge majority that doesn't bother (or doesn't even know how to) turning off javascript will not complain on HN.
- AlisdairO 12y agoI guess - from my point of view it would be lumped under the wider group heading of 'how much should I worry about going to significant effort supporting stuff that few of my customers will care about?'