141–150 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enable JS for sites I feel are valueable for me. The first impression is always without JS. If navigation-buttons dont work without JS - I just leave.
Honest question - What are you trying to prove by not enabling JS by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially don't forget that no, not all your clients support JS. And there's no reason why they should need to, for a website. Sure there is, if you care about interactivity, responsiveness, and general user experience. The fact that not all potential clients support JS is probably irrelevant, since that number is probably incredibly small. You might as well say that not all potential clients have access to the In…
> Sure there is, if you care about interactivity, responsiveness, and general user experience. And all of these can be provided just fine using progressive enhancement. This is _not_ an argument for SPAs. > The fact that not all potential clients support JS is probably irrelevant, since that number is probably incredibly small. Your use of the term 'probably' suggests to me that you have not run any actual metrics. H…
Unless Stallman is in your target market that's probably something you don't need to consider for any longer than fifteen seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not all my clients support javascript, but substantially all I care about do. I even take advantage of this on my blog by rigging a field in the comments section to not be visible for users but be visible for spammer bots, so that they will fill it out and the software can auto-reject it. Works very well.
> Maybe not all my clients support javascript, but substantially all I care about do. See here: http://bradfrost.com/blog/post/fuck-you/ > I even take advantage of this on my blog by rigging a field in the comments section to not be visible for users but be visible for spammer bots, so that they will fill it out and the software can auto-reject it. That is a reverse CAPTCHA, it works very well, and has absolutely not…
Why is it better to be specific?
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enable JS for sites I feel are valueable for me. The first impression is always without JS. If navigation-buttons dont work without JS - I just leave.
if you self-select into the group that isn't cared about, then do you expect your leaving to be cared about? i ask only because i'm puzzled as to the purpose of your reply.
This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but that banner image is 10 megabytes, it can be compressed down to 2mb without any perceptible loss of quality. Heck it could probably be shrunk further if you can accept a bit more loss because most of the image is blurry and noisy anyway. heres a compressed version: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bw606t7znouxpj1/photo-141847963101...
4k is all the rage now on mobile.
just taken a chunk out of someone's download quota with that nice background!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I enable JS for sites I feel are valueable for me. The first impression is always without JS. If navigation-buttons dont work without JS - I just leave.
Honest question - What are you trying to prove by not enabling JS by default?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Your use of the term 'probably' suggests to me that you have not run any actual metrics. What I really meant is that if you have a significant non-JS-supporting visitor base, you almost certainly already know it. There are a huge class of web apps that simply do not have to worry about it. If you know who your customers/visitors are then you should already know how important it is to support non-JS browsers. > Requ…
> What I really meant is that if you have a significant non-JS-supporting visitor base, you almost certainly already know it. There are a huge class of web apps that simply do not have to worry about it. If you know who your customers/visitors are then you should already know how important it is to support non-JS browsers. I was refering specifically to websites, not webapps. > It's really not the end of story, and i…
There's motherfuckingwebsite.com but the tone of that site is very adversarial, I think one that lays out the reasoning in a noncombative way would be more successful at reaching some of these people.
The project team has gone radio silent and even the mainline "contrib" plugins have unanswered issues and pull requests.
TL;DR If you are starting a new project, don't use grunt.