21–30 of 79 posts
it's 2024. let's stop having this conversation
It is then completely unacceptable to force people to run code on their machines. Thus JS should always be optional.
Perhaps this is not the result you intended by attempting to shut down any opinions; but now we can't talk about it. So it's concluded.
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
Tracking.
Pure HTML doesn't allow much tracking.
Our sector convinced c-suite that we need all kind of data, and now they want it.
Honest question and no pun intended: I don't understand people's desire to prevent JavaScript from being a language that runs in the browser. Could someone shed some light on this?
Personally I have nothing against it (or to be more exact - I've given up hope for a Javascript-optional web) but I see the argument of people who keep it disabled because: – it consumes more battery and bandwidth (the latter still being expensive on mobile in some parts of the world; – it's often used to track you (including tracking everything you do - mouse movement, things you type into forms without even submitt…
It also eliminates most the incredibly annoying bits of the web: cookie banners, modal dialogs asking me to subscribe to newsletters, auto play videos.
On my phone 90% of the time I'm looking to read your content not interact with your spa. Enabling js is a 2 touch process if I need it.
I think it is fairly stupid on my part but it does add another layer of effort between me and doom scrolling
that is totally unsurprising, i would use javascript to build github too. why is this on the front page?
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
> This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users. Tracking. Pure HTML doesn't allow much tracking. Our sector convinced c-suite that we need all kind of data, and now they want it.
it's 2024. let's stop having this conversation
I think GitHub being an SPA is largely fine, it has good reasons to be in many situations, what I object to is when a shopping site or, even worse, a content site requires JS to work. This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users.
> This seems terrible when serving HTML is a much better experience for most users. Tracking. Pure HTML doesn't allow much tracking. Our sector convinced c-suite that we need all kind of data, and now they want it.
Honest question and no pun intended: I don't understand people's desire to prevent JavaScript from being a language that runs in the browser. Could someone shed some light on this?