3 ms·
If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you shou
by romaniv 12y ago
If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all.
It's a disingenuous argument introducing an artificial dichotomy.
If I can make a working website in HTML, but it works better with some additional JS, why exactly shouldn't I improve user's experience?
And on the other hand, content sites aren't the be-all, end-all of the Web anymore. The Web is increasingly a deployment platform for applications
Somehow I don't see a lot of these "applications". All I see is overly complex website that don't work without JS because developers don't know any better or don't care.
- moron4hire 12y agoMy point is, you probably can't actually make it better in even the majority of cases. I haven't seen a single site get hijacked scrolling right, yet. Scrolling is for the browser. And I do see applications in the browser, because I write them. It is really hard to imagine how 3D graphics and virtual reality have anything to do with traditional HTML and browsing habits.