4 ms·

I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in t

by EC1 11y ago

I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.

yulaow 11y ago
I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven
- pflanze 11y ago
  Unlike when serving people with disabilities, which you can't understand and test well if you're not disabled yourself (or specially trained), as a developer you should automatically be aware when you'd exclude people without JS. Nobody special needed for testing, just a resistance to implement navigation with JS only, or worse, JS-only content. Until now most content-heavy sites (like most university sites) are not problematic for the most part (1). Which I suppose is why there's no complaining till now. By having a healthy community of users with JS disabled, hopefully there will be enough complaints when it gets worse. (1) the static parts, which is most URLs used during the day. If I encounter a site that requires JS to log in, I'll open a separate browser with JS. If I encounter a page that only shows the content with JS, I just close it unread, unless in the very rare case that it's important to me (most important content is still not relying on JS).
- elektromekatron 11y ago
  Web design should always include a graceful degradation spec.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  > The web IS javascript driven I think the idea that you need Javascript to drive a page designed to show an article consisting of text and images is probably worth questioning. Maybe you do, I don't know. But I think you should at least think about instead of falling back on the idea that the web is Javascript-driven. You (probably) won't be benefiting the people without Javascript because hopefully your page works for them anyway. (Astoundingly, some simple article-type pages do not.) You will be benefiting yourself and almost all users because, without JS, your site will load faster and (often as not on really JS-heavy websites) scroll faster. If you're creating a webapp, sure, you'd be crazy not to use Javascript. But it's insane that Internet comment threads or text-based articles can drive yy i7 to 100% usage.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > The web IS javascript driven S = 'N'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + ','; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'n'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'i'; s = s + 't'; s = s + '''; s = s + 's'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'r'; s = s + 'e'; s = s + 'a'; s = s + 'l'; s = s + 'l'; s = s + 'y'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'n'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + 't'; s = s + '.'; $("comment_field").innerText = s
agumonkey 11y ago
I don't even ask for usable, I'd be glad to even see something. How many time noscript optimized a whole site into a blank html page. It's flabbergasting.

by EC1 11y ago

I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.

yulaow 11y ago

I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven

pflanze 11y ago
Unlike when serving people with disabilities, which you can't understand and test well if you're not disabled yourself (or specially trained), as a developer you should automatically be aware when you'd exclude people without JS. Nobody special needed for testing, just a resistance to implement navigation with JS only, or worse, JS-only content. Until now most content-heavy sites (like most university sites) are not problematic for the most part (1). Which I suppose is why there's no complaining till now. By having a healthy community of users with JS disabled, hopefully there will be enough complaints when it gets worse. (1) the static parts, which is most URLs used during the day. If I encounter a site that requires JS to log in, I'll open a separate browser with JS. If I encounter a page that only shows the content with JS, I just close it unread, unless in the very rare case that it's important to me (most important content is still not relying on JS).
elektromekatron 11y ago
Web design should always include a graceful degradation spec.
Amezarak 11y ago
> The web IS javascript driven I think the idea that you need Javascript to drive a page designed to show an article consisting of text and images is probably worth questioning. Maybe you do, I don't know. But I think you should at least think about instead of falling back on the idea that the web is Javascript-driven. You (probably) won't be benefiting the people without Javascript because hopefully your page works for them anyway. (Astoundingly, some simple article-type pages do not.) You will be benefiting yourself and almost all users because, without JS, your site will load faster and (often as not on really JS-heavy websites) scroll faster. If you're creating a webapp, sure, you'd be crazy not to use Javascript. But it's insane that Internet comment threads or text-based articles can drive yy i7 to 100% usage.
wtbob 11y ago
> The web IS javascript driven S = 'N'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + ','; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'n'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'i'; s = s + 't'; s = s + '''; s = s + 's'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'r'; s = s + 'e'; s = s + 'a'; s = s + 'l'; s = s + 'l'; s = s + 'y'; s = s + ' '; s = s + 'n'; s = s + 'o'; s = s + 't'; s = s + '.'; $("comment_field").innerText = s

agumonkey 11y ago

I don't even ask for usable, I'd be glad to even see something. How many time noscript optimized a whole site into a blank html page. It's flabbergasting.