How many users have JavaScript disabled? • Hacker News Board

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#71

Post by mike-cardwell » Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 3:40 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #70

BCM43 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? It does not work with noscript. I get a blank page when I attempt to vote.

You're right. The vote is counted, so I consider that as "works." The result is certainly ugly, but I'd name that a "minor display issue" as I can hit "back." Of course it would be nice if that "back" step wouldn't be needed.

Yes, that is very annoying. It should just send you back to the page you were already on and to the position on the page where the comment you clicked is.

You could probably also do some clever trick with checkboxes, the css3 :checked pseudo class, and background images to make it work without javascript and without page refreshes. Browser support isn't going to be great atm though.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#72

Post by acqq » Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 5:56 PM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #71

acqq wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. The vote is counted, so I consider that as "works." The result is certainly ugly, but I'd name that a "minor display issue" as I can hit "back." Of course it would be nice if that "back" step wouldn't be needed.

Yes, that is very annoying. It should just send you back to the page you were already on and to the position on the page where the comment you clicked is. You could probably also do some clever trick with checkboxes, the css3 :checked pseudo class, and background images to make it work without javascript and without page refreshes. Browser support isn't going to be great atm though.

I would expect that it can be reasonably easy fix (a few lines on the right places) to simply deliver some sane content as the result of the vote HTML query.

Shouldn't the referrer tag from the query be enough?

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#73

Post by DjDarkman » Thu, Oct 14, 2010, 7:17 PM UTC

carussell wrote: post #68

DjDarkman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FFS, use Adblock You are so fuckin wrong, JS is not a security vulnerability it's a programing language. Wikipedia: JavaScript is an implementation of the ECMAScript language standard and is typically used to enable programmatic access to computational objects within a host environment. If you want real privacy, then why not just disable cookies? ohhh your login won't work... well then just disable your internet conn…

Your post was poorly reasoned, and quoting Wikipedia was frivolous. Furthermore, it was written in a way that's grating for many people, regardless of your (poorly reasoned) points, because it a) reinforces the notion that you didn't care enough about your message to spend 15 seconds longer on it to write it properly, a feeling which already existed in readers' minds because of the presence of your (poorly reasoned)…

The comment I was replying to was even more poorly reasoned. And I actually written a larger post regarding this.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#74

Post by kls » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 4:08 AM UTC

kalid wrote: post #29

mirkules wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain that to a potential investor. "We snubbed 2% of our potential user base because we were too lazy to make sure that our site degrades gracefully." From the article, that's _6 million_ of Yahoo!'s 300M+ user base. I really don't understand what's the big deal about making sure your site works without JS, it's just some extra work that you're going to have to do anyway later down the line (and it will be more co…

Tell that to facebook ( http://i.imgur.com/9FdJa.png ) :-). The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles (no AJAX, need regular forms for everything), lose dynamic menus (want to duplicate those?), lose a ton of instrumentation you may be doing, etc. I think it's perfectly fine to say "non-js means you have a read-only experience". Even facebook doesn't go that far -- you can'…

The problem with bending over backwards for non-js is that you double your dev cycles

I would think you are being generous. A marked advantage of JS based RIA is rapid time to market, it is a simpler development model that provides superior usability when done correctly. The old page post model is a considerably slower development model. Hence all the server side frameworks, people have been trying to crack that nut, in the page post model, since someone bolted up CGI POST to a script and spit out some dynamic HTML.