21–30 of 75 posts
Before the content even loaded there was a light box that blacked out the content behind it asking for my email.
Do like me and turn off JavaScript by default. The more people we are, the greater the chances that the web remains usable without JavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do like me and turn off JavaScript by default. The more people we are, the greater the chances that the web remains usable without JavaScript.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
Before the content even loaded there was a light box that blacked out the content behind it asking for my email.
Do like me and turn off JavaScript by default. The more people we are, the greater the chances that the web remains usable without JavaScript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven
Until now most content-heavy sites (like most university sites) are not problematic for the most part (1). Which I suppose is why there's no complaining till now. By having a healthy community of users with JS disabled, hopefully there will be enough complaints when it gets worse.
(1) the static parts, which is most URLs used during the day. If I encounter a site that requires JS to log in, I'll open a separate browser with JS. If I encounter a page that only shows the content with JS, I just close it unread, unless in the very rare case that it's important to me (most important content is still not relying on JS).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do like me and turn off JavaScript by default. The more people we are, the greater the chances that the web remains usable without JavaScript.
That's like saying "turn off the ability to execute programs on your computer". Nobody's going to seriously start gearing web-dev towards a no-javascript world.
Before the content even loaded there was a light box that blacked out the content behind it asking for my email.
Why on earth is anyone going to sign up for your mailing list when at this point, they haven't yet had a chance to read anything on your site?
If you must insist on a sign up box, put it at the end of the article (and preferably after the article, not hiding the text).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't remember the last time the teams I've worked on ever mentioned making the site usable for people without JS and people with disabilities. "It's not in the scope!" Ugh.
I work for a public university, so when we make new sites or webapps we are obliged to make them usable for people with disabilities and we have at least one person who focus only on testing this... but without javascript? That is not even considered. The web IS javascript driven
> while Hebraic tradition went bigger, declaring six whole cities as places where criminals could take refuge
This is not true. The only sanctuary offered in those cities was if someone accidentally or via negligence killed someone. The relatives were not able to extract blood vengeance in those cities.
That's it. It was not for criminals. It was a way of discouraging blood vengeance, while also punishing the perpetrator.
The perpetrator would also be required to be tried in court after claiming refuge.
> These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this untouchable aspect.
Absolutely not true. If someone committed murder he could be dragged away from the holy of holies if necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was free to detain Lopez-Sanchez at any time while he was in San Francisco, and then deport him. What San Francisco did was refuse to comply with the ICE request to detain Lopez-Sanchez, because he didn't have a violent record and because ICE did not ge…
> The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article...I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory. Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist. OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocume…