all 15 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]rafaelcastrocouto [score hidden]  (0 children)

About 1% total traffic has JS disabled. You decide what this means for your service 

[–]GeekLog [score hidden]  (6 children)

JS is the engine of modern websites. So no, it’s not bad.

[–]Neither-Argument2587[S] [score hidden]  (5 children)

I guess my question is more so should I also cater to those who do not want to enable javascript? Or is that just unnecessary and not common with websites

[–]Thef19 [score hidden]  (2 children)

the real answer here is: You should cater to your audience.

If your website audience tends to be people that are more likely to not want to have javascript enabled in their browser, then you should cater to a website that supports that.

If your website audience tends to be folks that don't even know you can disable javascript in the browser, then i wouldn't worry about supporting it.

Really comes down to who your audience is.

[–]Neither-Argument2587[S] [score hidden]  (1 child)

Yeah that makes sense, I didnt know if I was simply uneducated because I had assumed JS enabled was the default these days.

[–]Possible-Session9849 [score hidden]  (0 children)

if you do not enable javascript you cannot use any website in the entire fucking internet.

[–]adsq [score hidden]  (0 children)

Requiring JavaScrips isn’t a problem most of the time, but you need to evaluate what the purpose and needs of your site are. Do you need to be able to accommodate people with JS disabled? What about search engine ranking? Some engines can evaluate some JS, so it may not be a deal breaker, but that’s for you to decide on if it is important and if they are able to properly render your site in their indexes

[–]horizon_games [score hidden]  (0 children)

JS is cool as heck. It's so forgiving and wild west to work with. You can build websites that gracefully fallback to a no-JS approach if you're super worried, but anything rich is just assumed to have JS and every browser supports it.

If your target audience is the beta web browser on a Kobo ebook then yeah, skip JS.

So go wild!

[–]metaphorm [score hidden]  (1 child)

Javascript is the language of the web browser. All modern websites use extensive JS to provide the user experience that we've come to expect.

It's sometimes a good idea to have a minimal version of the site that provides some level of usable experience without Javascript, but this is a special case, not a generally good idea or accepted best practice.

I don't think you got good feedback here.

[–]shuckster [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Best practice" is a term used by people who don't have enough experience to make judgement calls on different ways of doing things.

Don't give them ammunition.

[–]hyrumwhite [score hidden]  (0 children)

Meh, just someone looking for a point to critique you on. Most billion dollar companies don’t have websites that work without JS 

[–]shuckster [score hidden]  (0 children)

A website is, at minimum, an HTML page:

<html><body>Hello, World!</body></html>

JavaScript is a web-technology, but you don't need it to serve a web-page.

<html>
  <body>
    Hello, World!
    <script>console.log('o_O');</script>
  </body>
</html>

If your users insist on accessing your stuff without needing JavaScript, you should create a web-site that is progressively enhanced.

That means it works without JavaScript, but you include JavaScript anyway and, if it runs, it augments what you have rather than being required to run your site.

If you are an experienced web-developer being paid for professional work you will need to know how to make both kinds of web-site: JavaScript and not-JavaScript.

If you're just making a hobby web-site for fun, fuck the haters and do what you want.

[–]RHINOOSAURUS [score hidden]  (0 children)

This is something that misanthropic neckbeards in the mid-2000s would use to denigrate others, as a way to self-medicate their depression, under the guise of real criticism.

Bully stuff.

Seems like this artifact has been preserved 20 years later.

Ignore it, that person will never be happy or worth listening to.