"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jjo65v$305$1...@digitalmars.com... > "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.
Oh, and with JS disabled, it's impossible for sites *cough*GitHub*cough* to break the back button. >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). > >