Firstly and this may suprise you you... We know you exist. Yes you with a tinfoil hat, you under a repressive corporate regime. You keep trying to make your presence known through ranty blog posts, angry comments thinking we dont know you exist. We know but we found that not only are you a minority but our lives as designers and developers are a million times easier if we just ignore you. Yes i know you want to surf with vim or IE6 but thats your choice. You make your bed now lie in it but dont drag the rest of us with you!
Everyone has JavaScript, right?
61–70 of 101 posts
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#62While the point may be true, it's like don't drive a car because people do die in car accidents. The post is misleading as most of the cards present rare edge cases where JS doesn't work. Show percentages as well. Yes JS may not work 0.1% of the time. So let's fix it once all the higher priority issues are fixed.
You're underestimating how often JS doesn't work by an order of magnitude. According to the UK GDS JS doesn't work for up to 1.1% of users.
Are those human users or dumb bots?
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#63I find more and more sites using JS for layout and it being an incredibly frustrating experience on my phone. The whole site loads and I'm reading the article for 4 or 5 seconds and then the js kicks in, scrolling locks, everything stops while The page redraws. On some sites, including Android Centeral of all things, this can stop me from reading text I ALREADY HAVE for upwards of 20 seconds while it reflows. Simply…
Wouldn't have been much of a problem if CSS hadn't sucked so badly. If you want certain layouts and have to support old browsers you have to use JS.
The corollary of that is that "have to support old browsers" nonsense. Perhaps if everyone stopped supporting older browsers, the world would be a better place.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#64Lazy, that is what I call it... In the past the rule was degrade gracefully if something keeps the JS from running. Now days its like "screw you, we can't be bothered to make it mostly work with css, so your out of luck if the JS didn't run".
For me, I run with noscript. Most of the places I frequent (here for example!) work great without any JS, other places less so, but I can selectively enable what needs to run, and many times when I find those sites that simply don't work without javascript, I just click back, and ignore them. I don't trust sites that can't at least load some basic content to convince me they aren't just a malware vector.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#65I'm not sure I entirely agree that JavaScript should be developed in a Progressive Enhancement style, for two reasons: If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all. Semantic HTML and CSS are pretty amazing at adapting content fluidly and dynamically to a wide range of users and devi…
If you can live without it (the "progressive" part of progressive enhancement implies that the site is still usable without the JS), then I don't think you should be using JS at all.
It's a disingenuous argument introducing an artificial dichotomy.
If I can make a working website in HTML, but it works better with some additional JS, why exactly shouldn't I improve user's experience?
And on the other hand, content sites aren't the be-all, end-all of the Web anymore. The Web is increasingly a deployment platform for applications
Somehow I don't see a lot of these "applications". All I see is overly complex website that don't work without JS because developers don't know any better or don't care.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9432629 The web is no longer a collection of text content with links and forms. Many, is not most, web apps cannot be represented using html alone as progressive enhancement suggests. The core functionality just isn't there.
Bullshit. Every day I see blogs and static pages that deliver the content for articles with javascript. I'll get to a blank page, disable no-script, and can suddenly read the article. Why aren't sites like those using progressive enhancement?
That's exceptionally common with news sites, I've found. My theory is that there is so much tracking, advertising and "optimization" happening that it destroys the reason that brought you there in the first place.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't have been much of a problem if CSS hadn't sucked so badly. If you want certain layouts and have to support old browsers you have to use JS.
The corollary of that is that "have to support old browsers" nonsense. Perhaps if everyone stopped supporting older browsers, the world would be a better place.
Except for people that have to use old browsers.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#68Ten edge cases still makes for an edge case. It's a good to think about what we're doing but for all practical reasons, yes "Everyone has JavaScript, that's right!"
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#69I'm confused, is caching not a thing anymore?
I don't think the usability of a site or load times should require caching. Caching should enhance, but it should not be a fundamental requirement to make a site not suck. Caching is salt and pepper but shouldn't be the steak.
Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?
#70If CDN's based in the US need to do maintenance, they will probably do it late at night in the US , which might be at peak time for you if your website is based outside of the US. Just a though.
You might want to consider a different CDN in that case.
Don't most of the notable CDNs have a worldwide presence? Akamai, for instance, seems to be everywhere.