On 03/13/2012 02:14 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:35:54PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Jonathan M Davis"<jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.572.1331601463.4860.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
[...]
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.
Personally, I disagree with the notion that non-JS versions are a
"workaround".
[...]
Me too. To me, non-JS versions are the *baseline*, and JS versions are
enchancements. To treat JS versions as baseline and non-JS versions as
"workaround" is just so completely backwards.
While I don't agree that non-JS is the baseline (because most if not all
browsers come with JS enabled by default, so why would you want to
disable javascript for?), I'm starting to understand that providing both
non-JS and JS versions is useful.
At least so that:
- Some users don't go mad when they can't use it, and then realise
it's because JS is disabled
- And for the above reason, not to loose reputation to those people :-P
But if people didn't have an option to disable JS, we wouldn't have this
discussion. I think it as having an option to disable CSS.
(I was going to put as an argument that my cellphone didn't have an
option to disable JS, but it does... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... :-P)
