For example, imagine a forum where clicking the "edit post" button turns your post into a <textarea> editor and saves with AJAX so that you can continue scrolling once you make your edit.
To build the JS-free version, you typically need a separate endpoint, a new template, a redirect, and a less empowering editor. And all this for UI that 99% of your users won't see.
It just doesn't seem like a opportunity cost savvy way to build a website.
Then there are the UIs that take some real backsplits to accomplish without Javascript like a table that lets you mass-modify the rows with checkboxes and a <select> at the top that lets you choose options like Move | Archive | Delete.
You can wrap the entire <table> with a <form> such that all of your checkboxes submit to your mass-modify endpoint. That works without JS.
But since you can't nest <form> within other <form>, your <form method="DELETE" action="/things/{id}"> delete buttons can't appear in each row.
I have a hard time understanding how so many people in these threads can suggest that the opportunity cost of building for the 1% is always worth it. Does everyone just have basic blogs on the mind when they envision the labor involved in what they preach?
To build this feature for the tiny fraction of non-JS users, you're looking at duplicating all of this functionality on the server. This greatly increases dev time and complexity of the codebase. It means moving from an entirely API-driven platform to one where your server needs to understand the app logic as well.
Like it or hate it, Javascript is a web standard. You know that websites will break if you disable CSS -- the expectation should be the same for disabling Javascript.
Website layouts need to be made linear (single column) for display on mobile and the content order usually reflects that anyway. They also need to make sense when using screen readers.
Disabling CSS and checking the result gives you a quick sanity test that the content order makes sense and that the markup is used somewhat correctly. It won't be pretty, but it should be useable.
When I go to a blog post linked from HN and see a white empty page I will just move on.
Code execution is part of the web, it's here to stay, the number of sites that support non-JS experiences will continue to dwindle.
You're not some special snowflake. Other people make real decisions based on cost/value models, and you cost way more than you're worth.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's not readable without javascript then you've got nothing intelligent to say anyway.
Great! Leave please. I have no desire to interact with folks who approach the world in that manner.
You are more than welcome to disable JS, but the number of web developers that I've met that actually care about a non-JS user experience is next to zero.
Of course they can. The <form> action submits via POST to an endpoint that disambiguates the selected action, and forwards inside the server side to the appropriate endpoint. Shouldn't be hard with a competent framework.
Then, when JS is enabled, you override the click action on the action buttons, so that the <form> action never gets used.
You're asking web developers to come up with two methods to accomplish the same goal, which doubles the number of ways the app can break. It's totally unrealistic for any moderately complex web application.
I think it depends on the user demographic. If you're actively developing a service that you hope to be used even in the most deprived areas with outdated equipment and poor connections, then it may be worth it. For example, outreach programs, charities, and emergency services.
If you're developing something that is more or less a needless, but useful, product -- your demographic is more than likely the upper 30% of earners in the world... yeah, probably not worth your time to develop for that 1% who won't be using JS (or have the capacity for only older versions).
It has been somewhat humbling to watch users on low speed connections use the app before the JS finishes loading; it shows everyone the true value (or lack thereof, for the passive content consumers who make up ~98% of the visitors) of the JS portion of the app, since they see it with and without JS. Sure, they can't drag a box on my fancy visualization, but they can see a snapshot of it, and use the peripheral controls as links to navigate to the desired application state. Then, as they are reading something that is useful to them, the ~2mb JS blob slips in and quietly brings the application to life.
Also, I love the way the 3rd party JS blobs that management mandated, are so obviously slower than the rest of the page. This gives me good ammunition for the arguments where I demand an HTTP API, not a JS blob, from our partners. They hate that, because then they can't stuff their own trackers into our clients. Fork 'em.
From a comment below.
Some people may like it, but I'm just saying that it's not a feature that isn't disliked by some people.
Some people are so scared of "premature optimization" and "catering to a tiny number of geeks" that they trick themselves into making a huge JS mess. Most websites these days seem to be examples of this.
If you are building a blog or a news site (a classic "content" site), it should absolutely work without javascript.
If you are building an admin interface for said news site, where articles are edited and published, it is okay to require javascript.
Case in point: car seatbelts and airbags. Most people don't crash, right? But you aren't seeing the car manufacturers remove seatbelts and airbags.
The same sort of consumer expectation doesn't exist for no-javascript. Major browsers default it enabled. The web has developed to be seriously built on top of javascript for the last 15 years. Consumers have expectations for how the web should work in 2017 (for better or worse) and no-javascript isn't anywhere on the radar.
Consumer expect cars to have airbags and seatbelts, consumers expect websites to behave as they always have and that means javascript.
If there's no soft solution, disabling JS altogether is a good fish net for a lot of people -- yes the percent is close to a rounding error but the absolute amount can go to 1 million or more.
Statistical averages are a back-patting technique between managers, let's face that reality, shall we? They very rarely have the customer's interests in mind.
Again, let's face it -- it's bean counting, some medium-level product manager wants a raise by saving expenses.
That's all it is, that's all it ever was, and it ain't ever gonna change while there are people on these positions.
As any good civil engineer knows... “Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands.”
The essential characteristic of engineering is making mindful, appropriate tradeoffs between various costs and benefits, including features, risks, externalities, financial costs, etc.
The corner-cutting in the current tech culture is a bit too much for my taste.
I think I understand where my opponents stand, but I disagree with a part of them.
I browse with JS on (but I block ads and most tracking scripts) and only use a separate browser profile with JS off for sites that look fishy.
Requiring JS for a web app or interactive features in a website is fine.
A few years ago I had to use an old PC for a while, and disabling JS by default improved my experience significantly, but too many websites simply didn't display any content without JS, or didn't load images. The "web apps vs. web pages" debate has been beaten to death, but being unable to e.g. read a blog post without enabling JS just feels wrong to me.
I'm not sure if things are as bad now.
This is reasonable logic and I think it is an important point in getting more people into a technology movement, whether it is removing JS or anything else. A similar example is getting encrytion: many users don't know or care to use it, so it is usually a side issue if mentioned at all in a company. But if the percentage of people who do use it increases, companies will have a greater interest in supporting it.
Currently, normal users just care that content loads when the click the link for a website, and perhaps don't understand or care that JS is running or what the consequences of that is. A more constructive way to get better experience without JS is to ask others to also block it to show companies that this is an issue, rather than just directly asking companies to add support.