Re:Why we use progressive enhancement to build Gov.uk
by lmm on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @08:10AM
(#12538855)
How many users actually disable JS for these (or any other) reasons? Might it be cheaper to e.g. have a call center that trained to use the website on behalf of such users, rather than increasing the development costs of every government site?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why we use progressive enhancement to build Gov.uk
by robin_reala on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @08:23AM
(#12538917)
Last time we checked we get ~180k visits a month from people who specifically disable JS, ~810k further visits a month from people who don’t have JS available.
So no, it’d be more expensive to have a call centre.
Re:Why we use progressive enhancement to build Gov.uk
by asib on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @08:27AM
(#12538935)
I don't like this idea because it sacrifices ease of use in order to make small savings during the development phase. You shouldn't subject your users to extra grate where possible, and I think this is especially true for a government site.
Re:Why we use progressive enhancement to build Gov.uk
by richmarr on Tuesday September 20, 2016 @10:24AM
(#12539727)
My suspicion is that maintaining a call centre is more expensive than using progressive enhancement... but it's a fair question.
You're also assuming that starting from a simple HTML implementation is more expensive than other methods. I'm not sure that's the case.
As a rule, in terms of accessing public services at least, I'd be inclined to be very careful to make sure it was as accessible as possible.