Comment by dpark
11 hours ago
> And so does about 1-2% of all Web users.
To put that in context, about 6 percent of US homes have no internet access at all. The “I turn off JS” crowd is at least 3x smaller than the crowd with no access at all.
The JS ship sailed years ago. You can turn it off but a bunch of things simply will not work and no amount of insisting that it would not be required will change that.
I'm hearing you say, "don't waste your breath because change is not possible." And there you have your self-fulfilling prophecy.
To quote someone who lived before me: don't accept the things you cannot change. Change the things you cannot accept.
And the no-JS ship has not sailed. Government websites require accessibility, and at least in the UK, do not rely on JS.
Then you misheard me.
I’m not saying change is not possible. I’m saying the change you propose is misguided. I do not believe the entire world should abandon JS to accommodate your unusual preferences nor should everyone be obliged to build two versions of their site, one for the masses and one for those with JS turned off.
Yes, JS is overused. But JS also brings significant real value to the web. JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.
> Yes, JS is overused. But JS also brings significant real value to the web. JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.
Exactly. JS should be used to make apps. A blog is not an app. Your average blog should have 0 lines of JS. Every time I see a blog or a news article who's content doesn't load because I have JS disabled I strongly reconsider whether it's worth my time to read or not.
Did I say abandon? No. I said it should not be required. JavaScript should be supplementary to a page, but not necessary to view it. This was its original intent.
> JS is what has allowed websites to replace desktop apps in many cases.
Horribly at that, with poorer accessibility features, worse latency, abused visual style that doesn't match the host operating system, unusable during times of net outages, etc, etc.
5 replies →
I don't see how this makes the "JS availability should be the baseline" assumption any more legitimate. We make it possible to function in a society for those 6% of people. Low percentage still works out to a whole lot of people who shouldn't be left out.
I disagree. The world is under no obligation to cater to a tiny minority who self-select into reduced-functionality experiences.
It’s fine for you to turn off JS. It’s also fine for developers to require JS. Software has had minimum system requirements forever. I can’t run Android apps on my Palm Pilot from 2002 either and no one is obligated to make them work for me.
Without saying whether I think that's a good or bad thing, as a practical matter, I 100% agree. Approximately no major websites spend any effort whatsoever supporting non-JS browsers today. They probably put that in the class of text only browsers, or people who override all CSS: "sure, visitors can do that, but if they've altered their browser's behavior then what happens afterward is on them."
And frankly, from an economic POV, I can't blame them. Imagine a company who write a React-based website. (And again, I'm not weighing in on the goodness or badness of that.) Depending on how they implemented it, supporting a non-JS version may literally require a second, parallel version of the site. And for what, to cater to 1-2% of users? "Hey boss, can we triple our budget to serve two versions of the site, kept in lockstep and feature identical so that visitors don't scream at us, to pick up an extra 1% or 2% of users, who by definition are very finicky?" Yeah, that's not happening.
I've launched dozens of websites over the years, all of them using SSR (or HTML templates as we called them back in the day). I've personally never written a JavaScript-native website. I'm not saying the above because I built a career on writing JS or something. And despite that, I completely understand why devs might refuse to support non-JS browsers. It's a lot of extra work, it means they can't use the "modern" (React launched in 2013) tools they're use to, and all without any compelling financial benefit.