101–110 of 412 posts
Say what you will about jQuery, but it made graceful degradation easy (and encouraged). I do miss the days when people considered JavaScript an enhancement and not a dependency.
It was called progressive enchancement[^1] back in the days and it was good for you. [^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
Ironically, this articles confirms that investing into the no-JS functionality is becoming less and less important, with those major sites already forcing the user into JS. Why then would you invest your time and money to cater to the "eccentric" 1%?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really an answer to your question, but this might be useful: http://youmightnotneedjquery.com
Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. And manipulate the dom with something better then the browser API or you loose your mind. So new lib. Then normalize browser events. Oh wait, you can do that manually. But you are writing a new lib. Eventually the code will grow to be the size of jQuery anyway. Only not as well tested, documented and cached.
As an aside, it's very difficult to contact feedly directly, but they do have a uservoice account (https://feedly.uservoice.com).
>Verdict: Cartography catastrophe. As much as I hate JavaScript, Google Maps gets a pass. I'm pretty sure the code behind it is thoroughly tested. We can just suck it up and turn JavaScript on for one of the most useful tools from the internet -- how hard is it to find something that whitelists domains to run JS anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly think the security/privacy arguments are the only valid argument against requiring JS as standard. The idea of browsers sending data that the user has explicitly elected to send (in addition to, if we're being pedantic, that the server put there in the first place) is very compelling in this day and age - only problem being that in order for that to have any meaningful impact on web security in the general…
What about power consumption as another valid argument? Your battery will last longer without Javascript.
There will always be something you can do to reduce power consumption: expecting (or advocating) JS-free versions of all websites for that reason is a completely arbitrary line to draw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will last even longer without CSS
And most websites that work without JS also work fine without CSS. Almost like a pattern that can be found in properly built websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. Why doesn't fetch and its polyfill cut it?
Polyfill. So new lib. And even then. You need to encode params manually. And of course no middleware, so for special decoding or repeating headers, you end up writting a wrapper.
Just by making a function you're not creating a library. Sometimes I find DOM API verbose too. Nevertheless the fix does not need to be a interface like jQuery to completely hide DOM API under another interface. It may be enough to extend the HTMLElement prototype a bit or write a function to "compress" the code a bit and make it more readable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah. Except you need to do Ajax and fetch doesn't cut it. So new lib. Why doesn't fetch and its polyfill cut it?
Polyfill. So new lib. And even then. You need to encode params manually. And of course no middleware, so for special decoding or repeating headers, you end up writting a wrapper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And most websites that work without JS also work fine without CSS. Almost like a pattern that can be found in properly built websites.
Why doesn't the market care? Where is the JS-less Facebook/Twitter/Airbnb competitor that blows the customers away with "properly built" websites?
Same thing that is happening with ads and ad blockers.