mawburn — 2014-07-18T09:36:09-04:00 — #1
wolfshade — 2014-07-18T09:57:21-04:00 — #2
If they want to access my site/app, they'll enable JS. If they don't want to enable JS, they don't want to access my site/app. I'm okay with either scenario.
technobear — 2014-07-18T11:34:28-04:00 — #3
And what if (C) they are forced to keep JS disabled because of visual/perceptual/cognitive disabilities? So many sites these days seem to feel that sliders, videos and other moving images are a necessity - often multiple instances on the same page - and don't provide any simple means to disable the movement. The only alternative is to routinely disable JS as a form of self-defence.
If the site is unusable with JS disabled, I'll leave immediately. If I can access the site and make an informed decision as to whether (a) I actually need to enable JS to achieve what I want and (b) whether I'm likely to encounter any major problems by so-doing, then I'll go that far.
It's probably superfluous to add that I use JS as little as possible in my sites, and where I do use it, I provide alternative content for those with JS disabled.
mawburn — 2014-07-18T13:02:44-04:00 — #4
What are your reasons for disabling it? What "major problems" have you encountered in the past?
bluedreamer — 2014-07-18T13:13:21-04:00 — #5
IMHO there's a lot of "new" designers who simply throw it all together with a ton of JS to make it look fancy, and without a care for the sites visitors. These people probably haven't heard of techniques such as image optimisation either
technobear — 2014-07-18T14:08:22-04:00 — #6
Among other things, moving images cause problems for me. Depending on size, placement, number it may "simply" be that I'm unable to read the surrounding text, or it may cause nausea and dizzyness, etc. Multiple images which change on mouseover are also disorientating, although I tend to keyboard where possible, which helps to cut down on that problem.
Depends on your perspective whether I'm "cutting out a very large portion of the internet", or whether a large portion of the internet is excluding me.
As I said, I will enable JS where I feel there's a good reason, and provided that it has no adverse effects (for me) along the way. I use NoScript, so I can allow some scripts and not others, if I so choose. But it's a pain to have to go through that palaver.
Yes, I think that's what the problem boils down to. You only have to look around the forums to find people advocating more videos, more slideshows/carousels, more "Web 2.0" features (whatever that means), generally more bells and whistles. Usability and accessibility no longer seem to matter in many quarters. And it's because of the bells and whistles brigade that I - and others with similar issues - have learnt to habitually disable JS.
volter9 — 2014-07-18T14:22:56-04:00 — #7
With CSS3 moving images can be implemented too, instead of old way with JS and setTimeout/Interval
By the way, some applications like "brand new" HTML5 games can't work without JS.
(about) 50% of HTML5 features uses JS (Canvas, WebGL, Video, File API, native Drop'n'Drag, etc.), so you're refusing out of these "deserts" and leaving yourself only with "main" dish.
It's important to leave gracefully degradation, however, not every app can afford it.
bluedreamer — 2014-07-18T14:28:57-04:00 — #8
Even though carousels have been proved to be ineffective eh?
Web2.0? Haven't you heard, people are touting Web3.0 now - eeeek!
rubble — 2014-07-18T14:43:34-04:00 — #9
It's probably superfluous to add that I use JS as little as possible in my sites
kiwiheretic — 2014-07-18T15:25:57-04:00 — #10
Sent from my XT316 using Tapatalk 2
strider64 — 2014-07-18T15:36:40-04:00 — #11
davemaxwell — 2014-07-18T15:37:01-04:00 — #12
It definitely matters here - there are a number of countries who get better/more bandwidth than most US carriers provide. Part of why I avoid most "streaming" services as much as humanly possible.
rubble — 2014-07-18T15:48:18-04:00 — #13
there are a number of countries who get better/more bandwidth than most US carriers provide.
I was surprised to see how bad broadband could be in America and the prices some companies charge.
technobear — 2014-07-18T16:01:16-04:00 — #14
It's a problem here, too. We have decent broadband, but the mobile coverage is pretty poor.
mawburn — 2014-07-18T16:25:51-04:00 — #15
I would say Web 3.0 is starting now. Single page apps that act more like locally installed programs than websites. Leverage more on the computer that probably isn't doing anything other than looking at your page, than on the server. Doing it this way really opens up a ton of possibilities and it's not tacked on like it was with Flash (not to mention proprietary). Going a little in reverse and letting the browser act like a remote terminal, than a text renderer but letting it do more of the processing at the same time.
That article is almost comical. It reads like one of those "in the year 2000" articles from the 1950's.
Thank you. I never thought about it this way. You're probably the first person I've seen to have a legitimate reason, everything else I've ever seen was either paranoia (tracking stuff) or a leftover from the late 90's and early 2000s, where the only time you saw JS was when someone wanting a bunch of annoying tacky crap all over the screen.
As @bluedreamer mentioned though, you're never really going to move away from the tacky misused overloaded crap though... because it's still here.
felgall — 2014-07-18T18:10:44-04:00 — #16
Web 3.0 is long dead. The last time I saw it referenced in a book was about six or seven years ago. I haven't seen any recent sites adopting it either - it was an extremely poor idea.
frank_conijn — 2014-08-13T12:04:06-04:00 — #17
[My former user name was Frank S. Due to a failed password reset, i.e. sending of the new password, I had to create a new account, unless I would want to wait longer to participate.]
After having gone over the pro and contra arguments, I see no valid reason with sufficient weight to start coding for users with JS disabled. On the contrary:
- My clients won't want to pay for for dual-mode sites.
- If a client wants a site without any flashy stuff, I can make that with JS as well. (And I don't propose much flashy stuff anyway, for a number of reasons.)
- Accessibility can be completely independent of the use of JS.
- The general public doesn't even know how to disable JS in their browser, and in FF it is not even possible anymore, on a normal user level.
- I would think that the few users that have JS disabled are generally nerds with a psychological derangement, e.g. paranoia or an overly 'developed' self-importance.
- Coding without JS limits my options enormously, and dual-mode coding makes the coding significantly more difficult.
It is a good idea, IMO, to code as much as possible with a minimum of JS, due to the ever increasing mobile surfing. As such, native/vanilla JS has my preference over jQuery or other libraries.
wolfshade — 2014-08-13T15:04:37-04:00 — #18
Sorry for taking so long to respond to this, @TechnoBear ; .
When I code vanilla JS or jQuery, I'm coding for DOM traversal/manipulation, submitting forms via AJaX, doing calculations (which WebWorkers are FANTASTIC for, if it's something HUGE), stuff like that. I don't use jQuery .show() or .hide() unless the client DEMANDS it (which causes me to wonder if it will be worth working with them). So if visual/perceptual/cognitive is an issue, the sites/apps I work on can (most likely) be safely added to a whitelist.
sg707 — 2014-08-14T17:17:12-04:00 — #19
jeff_mott — 2014-08-14T18:35:37-04:00 — #20
No need to guess. Try it out.
Broadly speaking, it's still very usable, but certainly some things are clunkier.