"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain... > On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: > >> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain... >>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: >>> >>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I >>>> think >>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented >>>> hack >>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* "old" >>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and >>>> then >>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know >>>> how >>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of >>>> sense. >>> >>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS. There >>> aren't that many of you. >>> >> >> There are enough. > > Apparently not. > http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/ > > I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS > disabled. >
Does nobody understand basic statistics? First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large population. So 1-2% is still *huge*. Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately represent *all* non-JS users: A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results biased towards the "use JS" side. B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs. C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS users in the first place. >> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need >> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or have >> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the >> transistor. > > No, it *is* the point. As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast > majority of users, so I assume it can be used. If you don't like that, I > guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere. It's not > worth my time to cater to you. > And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site.