4 ms·

In my opinion, most sites should at least maintain a core subset of functionality that can work without JS. Sites existed before JS that let people read news an

by roneesh 11y ago

In my opinion, most sites should at least maintain a core subset of functionality that can work without JS. Sites existed before JS that let people read news and engage in commerce, there's no reason we should lose all that. Also, as we now enter a future where billions of people who never used a desktop computer begin mobile banking, being able to conduct business without JS might be one avenue to combat fraud.

joshstrange 11y ago
While I agree in concept in reality this is normally not possible. For a company like Google? Sure but for most companies out there they just aren't going to have the developer and QA resources to continuously test both JS and no-JS flows. For banks? Yes they can probably support both but honestly banks will probably move to MORE js to thwart fraud as in making sure you are a real person based on our mouse movements or other things. As for news sites, 10000% they should work without JS, the printed word is their bread and butter (even with some place coming up with more interactive news stories) so they should have no trouble supporting no-js browsers. There is a fear that they may just say "fuck you" to non-js people though if it significantly affects their advertizing (Lack of tracking or dynamic ad injection).
- yellowapple 11y ago
  There's a good article on progressive enhancement (which is, alongside / in addition to graceful degredation, what's usually referred to when one talks about JS/non-JS hybrid flows) that addresses the cited pain points and "myths". [0] The claim that PE is "twice the effort" is directly addressed; basically, it's not twice the effort at all if one actually designs one's app to support PE/GD from the start (or otherwise starts with bare server-generated HTML and adds on layers of interactivity from there). [0]: http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myth-busting-progressive-enhancement/ http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myth...

by roneesh 11y ago

joshstrange 11y ago

While I agree in concept in reality this is normally not possible. For a company like Google? Sure but for most companies out there they just aren't going to have the developer and QA resources to continuously test both JS and no-JS flows. For banks? Yes they can probably support both but honestly banks will probably move to MORE js to thwart fraud as in making sure you are a real person based on our mouse movements or other things. As for news sites, 10000% they should work without JS, the printed word is their bread and butter (even with some place coming up with more interactive news stories) so they should have no trouble supporting no-js browsers. There is a fear that they may just say "fuck you" to non-js people though if it significantly affects their advertizing (Lack of tracking or dynamic ad injection).

yellowapple 11y ago
There's a good article on progressive enhancement (which is, alongside / in addition to graceful degredation, what's usually referred to when one talks about JS/non-JS hybrid flows) that addresses the cited pain points and "myths". [0] The claim that PE is "twice the effort" is directly addressed; basically, it's not twice the effort at all if one actually designs one's app to support PE/GD from the start (or otherwise starts with bare server-generated HTML and adds on layers of interactivity from there). [0]: http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myth-busting-progressive-enhancement/ http://www.sitepoint.com/javascript-dependency-backlash-myth...