Even according to your own statistics, we're prioritizing 98.9% of user's needs over 1.1% of user's needs (or more accurately 99.2% of users against the broken 0.8%, since we won't do anything for the 0.3% who decided to break it on purpose).
Resources allocated to 0.8% of the userbase aren't free, they come from time that could be better spent improving the experience for everyone else.
> That’s potentially fine if the cost balance equation works out that way for you, but it’s a specific choice you’ve made to not support people who through no fault of their own don’t meet the requirements of the environment you’ve decided to create.
That's fine. The same 0.8% with a broken browser or proxy won't find elsewhere on the internet any more friendly to them. The best they can hope for is a small slither of sites with fallback, but the user experience will be so terrible they're better off just fixing the issue than continuing.
I find it funny that people spent years making these same arguments, but used assistive technologies as their cornerstone, now that assistive technologies (and the aria standards) fully support rich JavaScript sites, the argument has shifted to some hand waving minority that cannot even be quantified. We both know this is really about the NoScript crowd (and similar, like RequestPolicy), the other people with a broken web experience have far more significant issues that no one site can hope to mitigate.
No comments yet.
