Live data from Hacker News

Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

smashingmagazine.com

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#141
post #39

Oh my lord, this article is non-sense. Had you gone to a website and had not been able to read anything I would say... good point. But you went to a Wordpress admin to prove your point. Lord have mercy... you're really going to hate your experience once WP switches to a JS based editor. Quick, let's try using Facebook and other apps built on JS frameworks and complain about the functionality not working. Let's try se…

>Quick, let's try using Facebook [...] built on JS

Facebook has a no-js version of their website which suffices for all of my purposes.

https://mbasic.facebook.com

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#142
post #8

Back in 2006/7 I remember we'd use "progressive enhancement" to make a site work without JavaScript and then add JavaScript enhancements for those who had JS enabled. At some point (maybe after the popularity of Google Maps?) nobody wanted progressive enhancement and it was totally cool to just ignore users who had JS turned off. It made web app development so much easier, but probably less user friendly. It feels li…

It's more than that, they could have fixed html to support snippets without needing a full page reload. They haven't and now we're in this javascript SPA mess.

This, so much. There's a reasonable set of common JS usage patterns out there that really ought to be replaced with declarative statements in HTML and supported by browsers, so that doing things like dynamic forms, drag-and-drop areas, page transitions without reload, notification badges, etc. would not have to require running arbitrary code.

Intercooler.js provides a preview of what this could be like, but, of course, it's layered on top of javascript since that's the hammer we have to work with.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#143
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your page consist solely on a dynamically generated graph, it's OK for it to not show anything with JS disabled. If you have other content though, it's not OK to not show anything; only the graph should be missing without javascript, the rest of the page should still render.

>If your page consist solely on a dynamically generated graph You can put data for the graph into a table, then use a script to render that table as a graph. If people cared enough, graph libraries could expect heir data in table format.

I use the graph and a table under technique.

Saddly most graph libraries seem to love json data formats, which aren't logically table oriented... though if you used the json data and javascript to load the table and create the graph...

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some see it as self-centered, but I find it resonates with me strongly. Now that we're a global civilization, life would be much simpler of global-scale things get standardized. Like, if metric system was adopted everywhere. If people used ISO 8601[0] instead of whatever is their random way of writing time down. If people used one well-defined number format. Etc. IMO what's really being self-centered is - when…

How is it self-centered though? There's not 'self' here. My profession (IT) is not the only profession that requires translations. They are required everywhere and so what I am saying is applicable everywhere. My nationality is not in question either, because I am not a native speaker. How is that self centered?

Hey, I'm actually arguing your case :). I find sticking to local customs to be self-centered, because "why should I change to accommodate other people?".

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it self-centered though? There's not 'self' here. My profession (IT) is not the only profession that requires translations. They are required everywhere and so what I am saying is applicable everywhere. My nationality is not in question either, because I am not a native speaker. How is that self centered?

It's self centered because you have already crossed that bridge.

I'd say sometimes not crossing that bridge, which leads to a common meeting place, and instead insisting that everyone caters to your side is self-centered, but I just recognized that the exact same argument can be used against my position that most websites should be usable without JavaScript... Oh the irony.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#146
post #22

http://lite.cnn.io/en https://text.npr.org/ Every site should have a plain html option. Or create their html so that it works fine without js or cnn.

I use mbasic.facebook.com to browse Facebook on mobile. It's a lot smoother than m.facebook.com and their native app.

I do too. Gets you back messages in the browser as a bonus!

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's self centered because you have already crossed that bridge.

I'd say sometimes not crossing that bridge, which leads to a common meeting place, and instead insisting that everyone caters to your side is self-centered, but I just recognized that the exact same argument can be used against my position that most websites should be usable without JavaScript... Oh the irony.

For years the computing world had the position that if it couldn't be expressed in ASCII7 then 'fuck you'. Of course might makes right and all that but this goes beyond a couple of diacriticals. Finally with UTF-8 and i8n we now have a somewhat level playing field where for those that want we can exchange information.

The segregation between these language spheres on the web is incredibly effective. For instance, the Spanish and the English web rarely link to each other (and if they do it is most likely a link from the Spanish part to the English part). Ditto with many other language pairs.

A single world language is a nice thing to strive for, but I don't see why it would have to be English by default, even though that's what it probably will end up being anyway.

The French have always felt that their language is somehow special and that it should be given preference in the EU, and until not all that long ago it was the 'official' language in quite a few European countries by virtue of being the language of the wealthy. For the longest time the Dutch driving license still had the words 'permis de conduire' on it for that reason (and not as a convenient translation for any French police that might take an interest in the document).

French as a second language was the default, English a distant third. That's all changed now, but it is no different if it is imposed rather than of free will.

So if you want to go to that common meeting place that's fine, but if you're forced to go that common meeting place because a bunch of tech bozos have decided your culture, script and language don't matter because they have already mastered English because it was a requirement for them to be employed then that isn't.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it self-centered though? There's not 'self' here. My profession (IT) is not the only profession that requires translations. They are required everywhere and so what I am saying is applicable everywhere. My nationality is not in question either, because I am not a native speaker. How is that self centered?

It's self centered because you have already crossed that bridge.

And if I didn't it would be empty words. You just can't win :)

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's self centered because you have already crossed that bridge.

And if I didn't it would be empty words. You just can't win :)

Google translate! I've seen more than one conversation between people that do not speak each others language through automated translators and even though the results are imperfect and sometimes humorous it does work to the point that it amazes me. It also gets it spectacularly wrong at times, but still. So far no intergalactic wars have broken out over this.

Re: Using the Web for a Day with JavaScript Turned Off

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make development easier, and at some point it just doesn't make sense to support any longer. If the number of people who visit your site with JavaScript disabled is less than the number of people who visit using the Opera browser, does it really make sense to add [number of supported browsers] x [JS on | JS off] permutations to your testing workload? Is spending the time and resources on creating a non-JS sit…

> Is spending the time and resources on creating a non-JS site worth it Comments like these make me wonder if any of the people saying PE is hard ever tried it at all. The whole point of progressive enhancement is that you don't create a separate non-JS website.

I do not understand your comment. Progressive Enhancement (and I've done it) has a lot going for it, but "easier" or "as easy" isn't the case. Thus time and resources are spent to get the same functionality.

Example: I make a form. It works without JS, so my server has to generate the form, handle the request where the form is submitted, and generate the result HTML. If I'm practicing good separation of concerns, the work is done in a service/contained library that the webserver code calls and assembles into a page. Then I go to add a "nice" Js experience: disable the normal form submit, read the form data, send the request, parse what I need out of the HTML result ("parse" = easy cut here) and replace the portion of the DOM involved. A nice, maintainable PE site. Nothing wrong with that.

But if I have the server generate the original page only, I can have JS read the form, call the service, and update the DOM. I was able to completely skip the server composing a new page. And that's for a bone-simple form, if my site has any interaction on that form before submit, each step represents duplicated effort. Checking if a name is already used? JS to call a service and add a line. Server/service absolutely needs to check that, but if we're not worrying about PE we can completely skip worrying about a nice UI generated on the server-side (which would involve re-populating the form we got, so it's not just "same HTML + one line"). And that's still the stupid-simple stuff.

To do this I need to design the application w/o JS and then find nice ways to improve it. But my designers, my PMs, they are all thinking from a JS-first point of view, so without PE when they say "do X" I can do X. With PE when they say "do X" I need to figure out how to do Y (a flow they didn't consider at all), and make sure it can behave like X. Anywhere it's hard to do so, it's on me to fix that because neither design nor business consider PE remotely important or valuable.

PE is great, and I'd love to work on more sites that use it...but I'll confess I rarely put forth the effort myself, even when I do have the space to do so in a project. Because Progressive Enhancement IS effort (most importantly time), effort that will most likely be seen by a single digit number of users and I've got a lot of stuff I want to do and a lot I need to do. Even a free hour can improve my productivity or quality for far more users if I spend it in something other than PE.

PE has very real benefits beyond just working without JS...but even those benefits rarely outweigh the time/effort costs in an industry where there's always far more work than time.

Post reply on HN