undefined | Better HN

0 pointscarapace6y ago0 comments

As one of "those who have voluntarily disabled JavaScript" this comment is pretty disappointing.

0 comments

If you disable a tool which you know is used to build many websites nowadays then you really should expect a deprecated experience. You're in the minority and honestly I don't know why you should expect web developers to cater for you.

jimktrains26y ago

Because things like blogger and Google groups shouldn't require js to just view text. There is a large, large, enormously large body of work out there that doesn't need JavaScript to achieve its goal like showing text or images, but are more-or-leas broken without JavaScript. That's the tragedy. I don't expect a web app, such as Google maps or Google docs to work without js, but I should be able to read blogs and newsgroups.

cheerlessbog6y ago

Why don't you want to run JS, on a site you trust, that has no ads?

4 more replies

carapaceOP6y ago

First, as a person who makes web sites and apps, I believe it's unprofessional to fail to account for users who can't or won't run JS. JS abuse is rampant. I choose not to let sites run JS by default because I don't trust most sites not to have some sort of compromise or malware.

Second, it's fine with me if some site wants to forgo my patronage, or provide "a deprecated experience", but not the government.

I certainly do expect my federal, state and local government to follow best practices and provide working websites that I can use without running JS.

I can't think of a single function of government that requires JS, thank God.

Someone12346y ago

> I certainly do expect my federal, state and local government to follow best practices and provide working websites that I can use without running JS.

Best practices is a moving target. What made sense in 1999 doesn't make sense in 2019. The web simply requires JS, CSS, and HTML today. If you disable any one you aren't compatible.

There's no actual argument for why websites should spend significantly to support a tiny subset of users that intentionally break compatibility for ideological reasons. It is unfair to our other >99% of users who we'd have more time for.

The old arguments such as accessibility aren't correct any longer: accessibility devices specifically support JavaScript (text contrast, HTML organization/order, aria tags, video subtitles, etc remain highly important).

If you really insist on a JavaScript free world you are of course welcome to visit a government office in person, pick up, and mail back a paper form. The website is merely a convenience we offer to you.

Otherwise you'll need an IE 10 or newer browser, on an Operating System that supports TLS 1.1 (Windows Vista or newer), JavaScript, CSS, and HTML.

1 more reply

iSnow6y ago

>First, as a person who makes web sites and apps, I believe it's unprofessional to fail to account for users who can't or won't run JS. JS abuse is rampant.

If you do web for a living, you should also know that fallbacks and graceful degradation and server-side rendering all come with a cost. Both monetarily and in terms of complexity.

1 more reply

Ephiiz6y ago

While I agree with you that most if not all sites should offer some sort of no JavaScript fallback, the development resources required to offer such a thing is just generally unpractical when it's such a small minority of users. Government or not, they still have to choose between spending their limited departmental resources on an extremely small minority, or the greater userbase as a whole.

2 more replies

amalcon6y ago

It's kind of absurd that just using the web the way it was designed is now considered "catering to you".

benbristow6y ago

Browsers don’t have JavaScript disabled by default. You’re going out your way to disable it. The modern web expects JavaScript to be enabled.

1 more reply

Moru6y ago

As another user disabling js: Not entirely unexpected.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

benbristow6y ago

jimktrains26y ago

cheerlessbog6y ago

Why don't you want to run JS, on a site you trust, that has no ads?

4 more replies

carapaceOP6y ago

Second, it's fine with me if some site wants to forgo my patronage, or provide "a deprecated experience", but not the government.

I certainly do expect my federal, state and local government to follow best practices and provide working websites that I can use without running JS.

I can't think of a single function of government that requires JS, thank God.

Someone12346y ago

> I certainly do expect my federal, state and local government to follow best practices and provide working websites that I can use without running JS.

Best practices is a moving target. What made sense in 1999 doesn't make sense in 2019. The web simply requires JS, CSS, and HTML today. If you disable any one you aren't compatible.

Otherwise you'll need an IE 10 or newer browser, on an Operating System that supports TLS 1.1 (Windows Vista or newer), JavaScript, CSS, and HTML.

1 more reply

iSnow6y ago

>First, as a person who makes web sites and apps, I believe it's unprofessional to fail to account for users who can't or won't run JS. JS abuse is rampant.

If you do web for a living, you should also know that fallbacks and graceful degradation and server-side rendering all come with a cost. Both monetarily and in terms of complexity.

1 more reply

Ephiiz6y ago

2 more replies

amalcon6y ago

It's kind of absurd that just using the web the way it was designed is now considered "catering to you".

benbristow6y ago

Browsers don’t have JavaScript disabled by default. You’re going out your way to disable it. The modern web expects JavaScript to be enabled.

1 more reply

Moru6y ago

As another user disabling js: Not entirely unexpected.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse