This post doesn't address the main reasons for PE.
- Accessibility - Spiderability by search engines
If you want to say PE is dead please explain how these don't matter to most websites.
Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
211–220 of 263 posts
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#212For me, the real indicator that progressive enhancement is "dead" was that as I began reading the post, I was left wondering "what the &*%^ is this progressive enhancement that he's declaring as dead?" until, pretty much, when I finished the post.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Today's reasonably-built JavaScript-based applications are built using HTML as templates. They don't use a as a button, they use a as a button. They don't invent navigation using JavaScript, they use tags and a JavaScript-based router. Take a look at discuss.emberjs.com, which uses Discourse (which is powered by Ember... INCEPTION): On the front page, every navigation, including the links on top and the links to indi…
Using as a button? Enjoy your form submission when it's inside a form element. HTML is the most frustrating thing in the universe.
does not do anything, even inside a .
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#214This post does nothing to address the biggest reason people might have Javascript disabled: security. If I'm browsing through Tor (or whatever), I'm not going to turn on Javascript to use your site. If your site doesn't work without it, you've lost a customer. Granted, people who disable javascript are obviously vastly outnumbered, but just saying "fuck you" to security conscious (and most likely tech-savvy) users se…
But security-aware people are negligible minority!
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#215I'm ready for JavaScript sites ... but notice a very important nugget in the authors post, "web apps need to have good URLs". This cannot be overstated.
1. Stop preventing middle and right clicks on JavaScript enabled links. For left clicks, sure ... control the flow.
2. Respect the fact that this is NOT a desktop environment, therefore my view of your program's "screens" should be on a per URL basis. I actually might want to view a list you generated in my own separate "window" or "screen" with the URL visible, usable, and savable in the browser.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#216Not a single mention of SEO on the article. I guess Google is dead too.
Try viewing meta.discourse.org without Javascript on then look under the hood - it's a pretty easy problem to solve with some tags. Other approaches use PhantomJS to create a "rendered" copy that is accessible to primitive clients/scrapers.
> Other approaches use PhantomJS to create a "rendered" copy that is accessible to primitive clients/scrapers.
Then your site does not require client-side JS support.
The point is not about what technologies you use to produce documents, the point is what data you [can] serve.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#217I like to save every document I read online (including discussion, if possible, these often contain insightful posts). Maybe it's obsessive, but I do it.
Some documents, especially those using Ajax for loading content or multiple pages, make this difficult. I hate them. (Hacker News, oddly, does it too - when a discussion is archived, it becomes paged, which makes it more complicated to store.)
I wish there would be a standard way to store page offline, including all the JS changes made to its looks, all the external content etc.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#218Lots of absolute views in this thread. How about: If it's profitable for your site to offer a non-JS fallback, do it. If it isn't, don't.
There are other things besides personal financial profits. Think of them as taxes to maintain Internet working and flexible.
If you don't pay that tax, you're personally contributing to a future when simple documents become full-fledged programs, and everyone lose abilities to easily manipulate and interact with them in any but author-defined ways.
There are cases where you can be exempt from that tax - if your site is not about documents, but their transformations, i.e. it's more of a process, not data. (Then you should call it app, not site). But vast majority of sites isn't.
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
"99.99% of the people visiting my site have JS enabled" Do you know that for a FACT, or are you just guessing?
To add to this, generally most user data collected is through javascript. If you don't have javascript enabled...
Yup, that's always in the back of my mind when people talk about javascript-enabled user stats. Of course, it's perfectly possible that the OP IS recording accurate(-ish) JS usage stats, it's just more involved than other client stats that are readily provided to the server, so less likely. If 99.99% wasn't just a figure plucked out of the air, it sounds believable that it's being obtained 'correctly', since it's not 100% :)
Re: Progressive Enhancement Is Dead
#220I still teach both "graceful degradation" and "progressive enhancement" to students in my "Web101 - Introduction to Web Development and Design"...