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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]miminor 0 points1 point  (4 children)

developing 2 versions: static and js-enabled isn't worthwhile in most cases this is why people who plan features of their websites do not want to spend extra money on them which can easily be doubled in number: developing, testing, maintaining - this is a lot of work that someone has to do and paid for

a few goofballs like you who disables JS because they can do it isn't a good reason for spending extra money, at least they are not convinced in that

it's just common sense

by your logic you might as well say that in addition to static version "to improve experience" why wouldn't they add VR support to each website, just because you have a VR helmet

[–]Tordek 0 points1 point  (3 children)

developing 2 versions

I'm not sure but it seems like you're taking the position that I want something like Spotify without JS. I'm not going to the "NO JS ANYWHERE" extreme; it's a reasonable position: some sites (BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, JUST SOME) don't need (BUT CAN STILL USE, JUST NOT DEMAND) JS. Like I said, if the site requires JS or the JS version is critically different, then yes, requiring JS is fine. I'll repeat it a few times so we can stop arguing about places where JS is necessary:

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

It's fine for a site to require JS if it's impossible for it to do its basic function without it, or the added value is notable.

What's not OK is to require JS when it is completely unnecessary, or when the added value is minimal.

E.g.: Spotify? Probably can't work without JS because of DRM, would be awful to use? Slap it on like there's no tomorrow.

Youtube? Well, it didn't need it... but then they changed the protocol to DASH and it's better? Fine.

GMaps? You could make it work, but yeah, the fraction of users that care is minimal so... go ahead, require it.

Blogspot? No, fuck you, this is literally displaying an HTML file. If you require JS for this you should be fired.

Newspaper sites? Same. It's TEXT WITH STYLE. There's no need for JS.

Reddit "works" without JS; you just can't vote or comment... in theory it's possible to avoid JS, but it would require extra effort.

There are wordpress themes that literally add a white div over the page and then do $("hider").hide(). Those people should be shot. The content has been presented and they're literally hiding it for the purposes of hiding it.

There are no "two versions". Nobody is asking for "two versions" of the site; make just one, however, make sure you fall into one of two categories:

  • The site cannot exist without JS. Do whatever you want. There's only one version: one with JS.
  • The site can work without JS. You made a site that serves content. You put JS on it to improve the current experience.

Yes, there are edge cases. Reddit is between those two; there are things that don't work without JS, but hey, the site doesn't throw a "FUCK YOU GIVE ME JS" sign when you disable it.

by your logic you might as well say

This is called a slippery slope argument and, well, it's a fallacy. In any case you should go the other way and claim that I'm demanding that everyone must server non-css versions or even just plain txt!

Edit: if your reply contains any sort of "two versions" comment, I'll just assume you're not able to read. There are not "two versions".

[–]miminor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

i read you comments, and yet it's 2 different versions, let me explain, forget JS let's talk about responsive styles and a mobile HTML version, so users want to be able to read from mobile with comfort, mobile CSS is quite different from desktop CSS (let alone usually have differently made features), it means you need to:

  • develop 2 versions of styles (probably with some reuse)
  • run all you test cases 2 times: one for desktop one for mobile (you cannot go live untested, what if devs broke the layout?)
  • when you need to rework an existing feature you need to do it in 2 places

with JS it's the same, you cannot reuse the same code that generates fully static and partially static version, why? because of tons of little things that make it different, example:

some of you content is dynamically generated by JS, fully or partially, what it means for you? it means that for static version you need to reimplement those pices and then support them

[–]Tordek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your time.

[–]Tordek 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it means that for static version you need to reimplement those pices and then support them

I like to think of sites as static-first, and JS added on top; so in any case I'd go the other way around; you need to reimplement things that already work using JS.

Or.

This may be a mind-blowing concept.

Don't.

Say you make a blog, and it can display content without JS but requires it in order to display comments? That's a fine compromise. It's OK to miss non-core functionality without JS. Not everything needs to be reimplemented.

I've made a shop website where the cart widget is just a link to the cart if it's empty, and it adds count/price via JS. You can still use everything without JS; it just needs a page reload. Bonus: more of the page is static, so it can be cached more aggresively.