On 13 March 2012 14:58, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 09:17:22PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 01:50:29 Adam D. Ruppe wrote: >> > On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 00:25:15 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >> > > But that's a decision based on your needs as a website developer. >> > > If JS best suits whatever the needs of a particular website >> > > developer are, then they are completely justified in using it, >> > > because 99% of the people out there have it enabled in their >> > > browsers. >> > >> > If it takes ten seconds to support 100% of the people out there, why >> > not? >> >> [snip] >> >> > Now, there *are* cases where you can't do this so easily. >> > If you're stuck on poor PHP I'm sure this is harder than >> > in D too... but really, do you have one of those cases? >> >> All I'm saying is that if it makes sense for the web developer to use >> javascript given what they're trying to do, it's completely reasonable >> to expect that their users will have javascript enabled (since >> virtually everyone does). If there's a better tool for the job which >> is reasonably supported, then all the better. And if it's easy to >> provide a workaround for the lack of JS at minimal effort, then great. >> But given the fact that only a very small percentage of your user base >> is going to have JS disabled, it's not unreasonable to require it and >> not worry about the people who disable it if that's what you want to >> do. > [...] > > The complaint is not with using JS when it's *necessary*. It's with > using JS *by default*. It's with using JS just because you can, even > when it's *not needed* at all. > > It's like requiring you to have a TV just to make a simple phone call. > Sure, you can do cool stuff like hooking up the remote end's webcam to > the TV and other such fluff like that. But *requiring* all of that for a > *phone call*? Totally unnecessary, and a totally unreasonable > requirement, even if 95% (or is that 99.9%?) of all households own a TV. > (And for the record, I don't own one, and do not plan to. I know I'm in > the minority. That doesn't negate the fact that such a requirement is > unreasonable.) > > OTOH if you want to *watch a movie*, well, then requiring a TV is > completely reasonable. > > The problem today is that JS is the "next cool thing", so everyone is > jumping on the bandwagon, and everything from a single-page personal > website to a list of links to the latest toaster oven requires JS to > work, even when it's not necessary at all. That's the silliness of it > all. > > > T > > -- > Computers shouldn't beep through the keyhole.
The phrase in web development is "Progressive enhancement" that used to be all the rage at one point. I miss those days... -- James Miller