"Ary Manzana" <a...@esperanto.org.ar> wrote in message news:jjne58$1ouf$1...@digitalmars.com... > 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.[...] >
Bullcrap. If people didn't have an option to disable JS, there'd be a lot more people using *very* *VERY* old browsers, and that would piss of *cough*modern*cough* webdevs even more. The problem isn't that JS *can* be disabled. Some people *just don't want it*: When they disable JS, yea, ok, on *some* sites they get a *slighty worse* user experience with, say, posting a comment. But it *also* gives them a *far BETTER* user experience on all those sites that misuse and overuse JS. It also increases security. The idea that JS-enabled pages are "just simply better" is patently false: Yes, *some* are *slightly* better, but many are *much* worse (no matter how good their respective developers believe themselves to be. *Everyone* believes "Oh, well, when *I* use it, it works very well." I'm sure the Reddit developers have fooled themselves into thinking their site is reasonably fast).