6 ms·
This should have a huge *citation needed. There are a million decisions you make which affect user adoption and retention of a software product, deciding to sup
by gfodor 12y ago
This should have a huge *citation needed. There are a million decisions you make which affect user adoption and retention of a software product, deciding to support NoScript users is a small grain of sand in that desert. Your claim that this facet of all those decisions will result in a competitor stealing market share completely ignores the concept of engineering tradeoffs. The competitor that "cared" about noscript visitors may spend many man hours (in direct costs or opportunity cost) supporting those visitors, time may be best spent building better competitive differentiators for a larger number of visitors. No design decision lives in a vacuum, and in my own experience designing to support non-JS visitors is almost universally faaaar down the list of priorities if there are good reasons to not do so.
- aikah 12y ago> the concept of engineering tradeoffs. supporting no script is as simple as not abusing javascript in the client.I fail to see how you'd spend more man hours when not investing in these full client-side javascript frameworks when your product can work without using javascript to begin with.
- gfodor 12y agoSee Gmail for a strong counterexample. It's UX is fundamentally about speed and responsiveness, and would have been difficult to build as one of progressive enhancement, hence they needed to build a completely separate user interface to support non-JS users.