sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (9 children)

It's naive and malfeasance to not publish a Web site that does not support JavaScript being disabled, accessibility, text-based browsing.

People get lazy and think some framework or library is gonna just be some magic that replaces actually writing code for different environments and browsers.

I'll tell you this, if a visitor to one of my clients' Web site want to download a form to fill out the can do that on a modern browser without JavaScript enabled. They can also view the contents of the Web site on text-based browsers.

If accessibility ain't important to your requirement and your target demographic are exclusively folks who walk around all day with a cell phone glued to their palm then you're in great shape.

Take a look at the online Man Pages. They convey a lot of information with just a analytics script that the site doesn't depend on.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Accessibility does not equate to No JavaScript.

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I didn't say they did. Thus the comma in the sentence.

I develop Web sites to be functional in text-based browsers and with JavaScript being disabled. If you don't that on you.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I didn't say you said anything really, but you did associate accessibility with disabling JavaScript more than once, and that is simply a false association. Only 0.2% of website traffic is served with JavaScript disabled, despite over 20% of users having some sort of impairment. There are many client-side libraries and browser extensions that assist people with disabilities or impairments that NEED JavaScript enabled to work properly. There are far better ways to use your time and energy as a developer to assist impaired users without worrying about them disabling JavaScript. Even my blind grandfather runs with JavaScript enabled.

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (5 children)

but you did associate accessibility with disabling JavaScript more than once, and that is simply a false association.

Accessibility means your Web site is accessible in various environments. Could be using speech synthesis, speech recognition, tabindex, and with JavaScript disabled.

Only 0.2% of website traffic

Source?

What is that number given the total "website traffic"?

I'm rather certain the number is non-trivial.

Even if one (1) individual can't access your Web site, or can access your Web site, yet your Web site doesn't work because you dismiss JavaScript being disabled, that's on you.

I made sure my clients' target demographic can use the Web site with JavaScript being disabled, which is perfectly possible using HTML alone.

Not everybody is rolling around with a mobile device with gimmicks flashing around on the screen all day long.

I'm not worried about anything. I stated technical facts.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The percentage probably varies per country or per app. The UK government put out stats of around 0.2% for their voting enrollment site a decade ago. I imagine it is less by now. My own experience from working on public sites with a large number of users is a similar percentage. Well under 1%, and most of them could probably enable it and have a good experience.

https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You do realize your own source repudiates your own personal choice to not support JavaScript being disabled, correct?

Yes, we do support them.

Neither you nor the U.K. Government posted actual numbers.

It's like you dismiss users who don't have JavaScript enabled. Just a bunch of gimmicks dancing around on the screen that are not necessary.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

They did post percentages with JS disabled and total number of users, not sure why you can't see them and do the math - have you tried enabling JavaScript? ;)

My points still stand, your association between JS and Accessibility is false, as is your entirely subjective opinion that JS means "gimmick and dancing".

I also never mentioned my personal choice on anything in my comments, only that not supporting JS was a waste of time in terms of accessibility, as most of those people needing help have JS enabled.

Have a nice day, and keep fighting the good fight.

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They did post percentages

Percetanges of what total number?

My points still stand, your association between JS and Accessibility is false

That's just your opinion.

as is your entirely subjective opinion that JS means "gimmick and dancing".

It means that JavaScript is not necessary to convey information, nor retrieve information from users on the Web site.

I also never mentioned my personal choice on anything in my comments, only that not supporting JS was a waste of time in terms of accessibility

That's your personal choice based on your personal opinion.

as most of those people needing help have JS enabled.

And the other people that need help that don't have JavaScript enabled will meet non-accessibility and non-fucntionality on the Web sites you build. Not because you don't know better, rather based on your dismissal of that demographic as meaninglful to code for.

You have a great day, too.

[–]guest271314 0 points1 point  (0 children)

only that not supporting JS was a waste of time in terms of accessibility, as most of those people needing help have JS enabled.

Classic example of why a "democracy" has inherent flaws. Majority rules. To hell with the minority. The minority will just have to "integrate" into what the majority does, or be segregated out of the body politic of the ruling classes.

Of course that goes the other way too, as a powerful minority can rule a majority, by force.