Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of the sites mentioned in the article would you expect JS to be necessary to use?
I find JS requirements perfectly acceptable for maps, twitter, youtube, and netflix. Particularly maps.
[deleted]
A day without JavaScript
191–200 of 412 posts
Re: A day without JavaScript
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of the sites mentioned in the article would you expect JS to be necessary to use?
I find JS requirements perfectly acceptable for maps, twitter, youtube, and netflix. Particularly maps.
"Acceptable" is not the question. I asked for which sites you'd find JS to be necessary.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply will not spend time tailoring a nascent or even mature product to 0.0001% or whatever minscule percentage of the population turns off JS. If you turn off JS, you get a blank screen. Why should I accommodate your cohort? Why write unit tests for someone who takes a standardish client with above 1% market share and does something completely unstandard with it?
I find that it's at least (usually more) double the work to build the JS-free version of something for a fraction of the user experience. For example, imagine a forum where clicking the "edit post" button turns your post into a editor and saves with AJAX so that you can continue scrolling once you make your edit. To build the JS-free version, you typically need a separate endpoint, a new template, a redirect, and a l…
> But since you can't nest within other , your delete buttons can't appear in each row.
Of course they can. The action submits via POST to an endpoint that disambiguates the selected action, and forwards inside the server side to the appropriate endpoint. Shouldn't be hard with a competent framework.
Then, when JS is enabled, you override the click action on the action buttons, so that the action never gets used.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misspelled "good bean-counting". Good engineering requires you to cover for everything you can. Case in point: car seatbelts and airbags. Most people don't crash, right? But you aren't seeing the car manufacturers remove seatbelts and airbags.
Counter point: many cars aren't made to accommodate people as tall as a professional basketball player. Should I call them all bad (or at least not good) engineering?
Counter-counter-point: I am above 180cm (far from 200+ where many basketball players are) and many taxis aren't tuned for me and I bang my head on the ceiling so yes, I definitely call the manufacturers of those cars bad.
Statistical averages are a back-patting technique between managers, let's face that reality, shall we? They very rarely have the customer's interests in mind.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which of the sites mentioned in the article would you expect JS to be necessary to use?
I find JS requirements perfectly acceptable for maps, twitter, youtube, and netflix. Particularly maps.
Maps would be severely limited without JavaScript. However, Twitter, YouTube, and Netflix could just as easily be implemented using standard HTML and tags without much loss of functionality.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#196One thing to consider is that at larger companies, we already have a difficult enough time testing all of our site with JavaScript enabled. Netflix building a version that works without JavaScript is like asking them to build a second website, especially from a QA perspective. When you look at your users and find that .5% of them are not running JavaScript, how do you justify spending the money for that few of people…
The NoScript extension is the 5th most downloaded extension for Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us...). If you want to show a blank screen or a broken website to those users, that's up to you. Some of them may really want to see your site, so they might try to figure out which of the twenty domains they should enable, and which of the thirty they should enable after that one doesn't help them. Most will likely click on the back icon and see what's next on the list.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all websites not using JS are good: http://www.theworldsworstwebsiteever.com/ It is not a question about JavaScript or not. It is a question about well developed site.
At least that site loads quickly, doesn't call home with tracking info, or use up all of my expensive mobile bandwidth.
According to my uBlock Origin plugin, this page does use Google Analytics and Easy Counter.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#198One of my clients loads a 4.5 Mb bower.js (including Angular with a lot of components and jQuery), they also include an extra jQuery script, a full jQuery UI and several other scripts on each pageload . Nothing is minimized. The bower file alone has 300k in comments. The CSS file is also nearly 1 Mb. It's just a simple website with some forms. They have 2 developers working on the site, a scrum master, a project mana…
uncss[0] works well for me. It removes the unused styles and then I run the css through a minifier to finish the job. The css filesize is greatly reduced.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#199Ironically, 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%?
There might be 1 or 2 billion "eccentric" people that rely on old/cheap devices and networks, plus the visually impaired that need to use braille interfaces with little support for dynamic contents.
Re: A day without JavaScript
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am so sick and tired of this argument. Having done it several times, no, you do not end up with something as big as jQuery, not by a long shot.
As big as jQuery? Gzipped it's 27k, a ridiculously small size.
Ridiculously small? That could take 10 s to download on a 2G network.