Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A day without JavaScript

sonniesedge.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 412 posts

Re: A day without JavaScript

#111

Post by Ajedi32 »

robin_reala wrote: post #102
dmitriz wrote: post #42

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%?

Because of those 1% the large majority don’t choose to turn it off but don’t have it available for a multitude of reasons outside of their control.

Such as... ?

If you're referring to screen readers, I was under the impression that pretty much all of them execute JS these days. Am I wrong?

Re: A day without JavaScript

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

inimino wrote: post #109
sametmax wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, a polyfill is not a library. It's a dozen lines, not a thousand.

> No, a polyfill is not a library

Yes, it is.

> It's a dozen lines, not a thousand

A polyfill can be any size, but there's no size minimum to be a library.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#113

Post by [deleted] »

inimino wrote: post #109
sametmax wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, a polyfill is not a library. It's a dozen lines, not a thousand.

[deleted]

Re: A day without JavaScript

#114

Post by linkmotif »

What is the motivation behind this mentality? Sure there are still webpages on the web, but there are also web apps. Why or even how would you expect a web app to work without JS? Why would you expect developers to spend time writing a non JS version of their app? Before taking on this endeavor, I would prioritize native apps, optimizations of all sorts, adding features, etc. Unless your app is gmail, why would you ever spend time on creating an HTML/CGI based web app? I keep seeing these posts and I just don't get why anyone cares about this.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#115

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

bitwize wrote: post #86
WorkLobster wrote: post #31

Having browsed nearly JS-free for the last two-ish years, aside from a bit of tweaking at the start, I have to say that it has made things a lot faster, more stable, and just much more of a pleasure to navigate. If anyone is interested, I have found that two tools make life a lot easier: - NoScript, which blocks execution of scripts save for those you whitelist. This means sites that reasonably require JS (e.g. YouTu…

NoScript doesn't actually work half the time; even when you whitelist a site through it the site could well remain busted. Source: bitter experience.

Presumably this occurs when the site uses a CDN for their js libraries (or even their main js). After a few days you start to spot which domains need to be enabled and which can be safely ignored.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#116

Post by gpderetta »

madsbuch wrote: post #78
pmlnr wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is fair, but when was the last time when a js only site was running on optimized JS?

All google products. But it is ridiculous to disregard JavaScript because some people can't write it properly. It is the same as saying that I wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup.

It is not ridiculous, machine crippling JS malware is a click a way and you will never know until you click. The safe strategy is JS off by default plus whitelisting.

> wouldn't use a browser because I once went to a website that displayed a popup

you would use a popup blocker though.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#117

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

VMG wrote: post #100
4c2383f5c88e911 wrote: post #94

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?

In the Facebook case this is supported by Facebook themselves. mbasic.facebook.com :)

Re: A day without JavaScript

#118

Post by sevensor »

I negotiate the javascript issue by using two web browsers -- w3m for reading hypertext and Firefox when I want javascript. I'm fine with my bank or an online store expecting to use my browser as a thin client, but if you require javascript to present your blog, I'm going to find a different blog to read.

This policy makes it pretty much impossible to use social media, because social media is basically blogs-that-require-javascript. I see this as a beneficial side-effect.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#119

Post by cousin_it »

madsbuch wrote: post #60

Simplicity matters, correct: What is simplest: A full website in Elm, or a website developed in a plethora of HTML, CSS each with at least a handful of libraries? Well, Elm needs javascript.. All in all: there is not need to be religious about the tech stack.

HTML isn't just simple to the programmer, it's also simple in other ways which gives it unrivalled accessibility (to disabled folks, different browsers and devices, web crawlers). Not sure any SPA framework can compete.

Re: A day without JavaScript

#120

Post by jaclaz »

If I may, it seems to me like there are several possible points of discussion:

1) Javascript is bad (vs. Javascript is good and variations thereof)

2) The use a lot of websites make of Javascript is overcomplex, gratuitious, uncalled for, intrusive, etc.

3) Sites should provide some (even minimal) functionality to people browsing them without Javascript

#1 is largely a matter of personal opinions

#2 is a known, undeniable fact

#3 is where everyone could contribute

Personally I browse normally with javascript turned off since years (and I use another browser with the capapbility to display the site "fully" when really-really needed).

Particularly when browsing HN, I follow given links and often avoid a lot of pop-ups, ads, and what not, and from time to time, when I find a site that won't load AND I really think that the linked to site is worth it, I use the "other" browser.

What is curious is that most "new" products, Saas, whatever simply fail, showing just a blank page, that is exactly what the site shouldn't do.

I would gladly accept a "You need Javascript enabled in order to fully appreciate the site" kind of message, but only if some (basic, simplified how much you want it, even text only, etc.) content is shown nonetheless.

I simply cannot bear the "blank page" or the "Your browser is not supported, please download Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and try again".

This makes me sure that the people behind the site in the best case have not understood the "showcase" nature of a website and in the worst case care nothing about user (please read as customer) experience.

So, if you create a site, consider how a part (even small) of the visitors may have not javascript enabled but they are anyway potential customers, they are somehow anyway interested in your site contents, by making their no-javascript experience so miserable you are turning them away from your site, sometimes forever, which is the perfect negation of the reason why you put the site together in first instance (to make your whatever content visible to the world).

Post reply on HN