3 ms·
>0.01% 13%, actually, globally. 2% in the US (population of NYC): http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/stats-no-javascript.html http://www.searchenginepeopl
by crdoconnor 12y ago
>0.01%
13%, actually, globally. 2% in the US (population of NYC):
http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/stats-no-javascript.html http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/stats-no-javascript.h...
That doesn't even count people who use browsers which you haven't tested with obscure bugs, or people who have laggy and slow connections that also breaks or damages the functionality of your javascript heavy web app.
- gfodor 12y agoThe point wasn't the number, the point was if only a small % of my users are affected by a given design decision, why should I care? Beyond that, website populations have bias and as such citing national/global stats is at best a first order approximation of the impact of not supporting non-JS visitors.
- crdoconnor 12y ago>why should I care? I explained why. For people who use browsers who you haven't tested which break the JS in obscure ways, not to mention people whose experience breaks in obscure ways because of dropped packets and high lag. >Beyond that, website populations have bias and as such citing national/global stats is at best a first order approximation Ironic complaint from somebody whose first guess was two to three orders of magnitude off.
- gfodor 12y ago2% of my users can have javascript turned off and yet only 1% of those people may be negatively affected by the decision to not ensure all features of my site work without it. but go on, keep missing the wider point by being pedantic.