Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Everyone has JavaScript, right?

kryogenix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#21

Post by leoedin »

[deleted] wrote: post #17

[deleted]

Did you even read the linked page? People turning off JS is one of 8 reasons given. In my experience (never turning off javascript) it's pretty reasonable. My work firewall sometimes blocks CDNs, so any website not serving their JS from their own domain may not load properly. I often browse on my phone on a train. Reception is patchy at best. You load websites during short windows of opportunity.

Maybe you don't care about people who turn off javascript, but perhaps you should care about people at work and people on phones.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#22

Post by mariusz79 »

[deleted] wrote: post #17

[deleted]

Most people create websites to make money..either by selling their services directly or advertising themselves or someone else. Not building your website to support as many people as possible is like creating TV Ad that only works on TVs that support HD..

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#23

Post by normloman »

cabirum wrote: post #12
joelanman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is at the bottom - progressive enhancement. If at least the html makes it across the wire, a progressively enhanced website will still "work": you can still read content, click links, submit forms http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-...

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?

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#25

Post by rakoo »

cabirum wrote: post #12
joelanman wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is at the bottom - progressive enhancement. If at least the html makes it across the wire, a progressively enhanced website will still "work": you can still read content, click links, submit forms http://jakearchibald.com/2013/progressive-enhancement-still-...

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.

Re-read the linked comment. There is a distinction to be made between content-based web and application-based web. The latter absolutely needs javascript (or your application language). If your site is part of the former category though, you should make sure that you keep your focus on the content; all else is secondary.

Also, I'd argue that the application-based web is still a minority compared to the content-based web, and you should check what side your site is really on.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#26

Post by donatj »

I 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 unacceptable.

ALWAYS keep in mind that people are coming to your site for the text almost exclusively. If your stupid JavaScript interferes with the consumption of said text you have failed as a developer.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#28

Post by cabirum »

indeyets wrote: post #18
cabirum wrote: post #12

Earlier 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.

Initial server-side rendering is still an option. User will be able to read the page, at least. And if URLs use a sane scheme, navigation would work too

Not an option. Concrete examples: anything webgl, image editing, games, even a simple curl app from yesterdays post (curlbuilder.com). Implementing curl app server-side would require double work which is against principles of progressive enhancement (or programming in general).

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#29

Post by yasth »

mariusz79 wrote: post #22
[deleted] wrote: post #17

[deleted]

Most people create websites to make money..either by selling their services directly or advertising themselves or someone else. Not building your website to support as many people as possible is like creating TV Ad that only works on TVs that support HD..

Actually a number of ads have content outside the bounding box for SD streams (though some SD streams now cut down things even more by letterboxing because of this). Ads were the first and still the most aggressive to have content strongly outside the 4:3 screen type.

Because if you can create an effect that works it can be worth more than the whatever small number of users on SD, especially as those are likely out of demographic anyways.

Re: Everyone has JavaScript, right?

#30

Post by mariusz79 »

yasth wrote: post #29
mariusz79 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people create websites to make money..either by selling their services directly or advertising themselves or someone else. Not building your website to support as many people as possible is like creating TV Ad that only works on TVs that support HD..

Actually a number of ads have content outside the bounding box for SD streams (though some SD streams now cut down things even more by letterboxing because of this). Ads were the first and still the most aggressive to have content strongly outside the 4:3 screen type. Because if you can create an effect that works it can be worth more than the whatever small number of users on SD, especially as those are likely out o…

But you can still see most of them.. But how many websites are broken when js does not load correctly for whatever reason?
Post reply on HN