On 2011-12-31 20:29, Daniel wrote: > There's nothing ignorant about the choices that Google makes with > their web software. They are a major corporation, and you can be > assured that all their decisions come down to money and supporting > their bottom line. They must have done the market research and > concluded that they wouldn't see enough financial return to make it > worth ensuring their web services work perfectly for users who turn > off JavaScript. My gut says they are right.
No offense to your gut, but even Google's web developers are made of flesh and blood. They have made mistakes in the past, and they'll make mistakes in the future, just like the rest of us. I'd prefer to keep this discussion on a technical level instead of appealing to authority. > Who are these mythical web > surfers who hate JavaScript? And why do I need to cater to them? "Hate JavaScript"? That's loaded question, and not worthy of a direct response. I choose to interpret it as "Who are these mythical web surfers who have JavaScript disabled". I am one of them. I'm a professional developer, and I make part of my money by writing JS applications. I also have JS deactivated by default (ditto for Flash, Java, and other plugins). I obviously don't hate JS, quite the opposite. What I strongly disagree with is that the web is, or should be, turning into a collection of "apps". If the primary content of your site is text (like a blog, a discussion forum, or a news site), then your primary concern should be to display that text. Fancy page transitions, artificial scrollbars, dynamically rendered fonts, and all the other neat but unnecessary enhancements are just sugar coating on the main content. I can do without them, and may even prefer your text without them. On the other hand, if you're publishing a JS game, or a web application where JS is essential, that's a completely different scenario, and nobody will blame you for requiring JS or plugins. I have worked with blind people. That was one of the most amazing experiences I ever had in this area... if you've never seen a blind person using a computer and the WWW, call your local support group for the blind, and tell them you're coming by. They'll be glad to meet you, and I promise you, this visit alone will make you reconsider. Go on, I dare you. There are other reasons as well. For one, there's the semantic level - if you're publishing text, then the text should be the primary focus. Scripting is not required. Then there's machine readability: search engines, indexers, offline storage, printouts, etc. None of those want your scripted enhancements, and some won't even work with them. Next, there are those users who aren't allowed to have JS enabled. This is quite common in places where security trumps convenience. Two of my current clients have this policy for all their employees. Then there are the paranoid/minimalist people (you can count me in that group). I do a lot of work related to IT security - in my office, 100% of us browse with Firefox + NoScript + Flashblock + Ghostery + HTTPSEverywhere + AdblockPlus + (many other related addons). When we see a blank page where there should be text, we a) close it immediately, or b) assume the author is technically illiterate. I've already mentioned accessibility, but I can't stress this point enough. Please, don't exclude disabled users for no logical reason. > One of my favorite comments from a similar discussion: > > "Websites are really web applications these days, and JavaScript is an > integral and crucial component of the browser. Turning off JavaScript > and then expecting everything to work is like removing your video card > and then trying to play World of Warcraft using your printer. Yeah, > blizzard could have implemented some sort of text based version of wow > but what’s the point?" Urgh. I couldn't disagree more. Websites are *not* web applications, and for most websites, JS is *not* crucial. Viz amazon.com. Apparently, they're doing just fine without JS. They use it to enhance their visitors' experience, but you can still use the store without it. Which is as it should be. Ignoring the silly WoW strawman. - stefan -- LOAD"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!",8,1 RUN! -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
