3 ms·
> This is a slide deck (not a blog post or article) hence its dependence on JS. That makes it acceptable to not fail gracefully?
by jimktrains2 11y ago
> This is a slide deck (not a blog post or article) hence its dependence on JS.
That makes it acceptable to not fail gracefully?
- SixSigma 11y agoYes. If I'm doing a presentation using a known browser why do I care about your failures.
- scintill76 11y agoBecause you might end up sharing the URL with people who don't have your "known browser", like the very situation that is prompting this complaint. I get it, whining about graceful degradation and being anti-Javascript can be annoying, but your response is even more so.
- SixSigma 11y agoNo, no, no. Do the right thing for now, not some mythical "what if" situation later that adds premature complification. One should argue that OP should re-write the whole thing in non-slide deck format - TTRWTF
- scintill76 11y agoOK, that's a pretty good point. I still stand by mine as a reasonable, not overly-complicated design goal if I were making a general slides viewer.
- jimktrains2 11y ago> One should argue that OP should re-write the whole thing in non-slide deck format - TTRWTF There are many CSS and JS-based slide decks that degrade nicely. e.g. deck.js (http://imakewebthings.com/deck.js/introduction/deck.html http://imakewebthings.com/deck.js/introduction/deck.html).