"Nick Sabalausky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I >>>>> think >>>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly >>>>> implemented >>>>> hack >>>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* >>>>> "old" >>>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and >>>>> then >>>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know >>>>> how >>>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of >>>>> sense. >>>> >>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS. There >>>> aren't that many of you. >>>> >>> >>> There are enough. >> >> Apparently not. >> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/ >> >> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS >> disabled. >> > > Does nobody understand basic statistics? > > First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by > the seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* > large population. So 1-2% is still *huge*. > > Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately > represent *all* non-JS users: > > A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via > NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results > biased towards the "use JS" side. > > B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you > know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling > JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it > *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs. > > C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have > questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS > users in the first place. > > >>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need >>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or >>> have >>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the >>> transistor. >> >> No, it *is* the point. As a web developer, javascript is used by the >> vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used. If you don't like >> that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere. >> It's not worth my time to cater to you. >> > > And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site. >
And besides, you're still conventiently ignoring the fact that sites which require JS typically provide a *worse* user experience then sites that don't use it, *even when JS is enabled*. So you want to say "fuck off" to the millions of people in that "measly" 1-2% just for the sake of making your site *worse* for the other 98%? Fine, be a self-defeating idiot, if you insist. And before you say "No! They like it better with the JS-ness!", I'll point out that most people only *think* they know what they like. Don't forget what happened when Vladimir's D forums were posted on Reddit: All those JS-using redditers (reddit requires JS for most features, so it's safe to assume most reddit users are JS users - non-JS users are likely to avoid reddit) who *thought* reddit had a reasonable user-experience were absoutely *floored* by how "fast" the D forums were. (Personally, I find the D forms to be normal speed and reddit to be absurdly slow.) JS-users *prefer* non-JS sites - they're just too brainwashed to realize it. Notice too how those forums load entire pages faster than AJAXy sites like GitHub do their beloved partial reloads.
