Timeline for Should I bother to develop for JavaScript disabled?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2016 at 13:23 | comment | added | SuperUberDuper | If you expect my web application (that is providing a service to you) to run without javascript then I don't want your business. | |
| May 26, 2011 at 17:36 | comment | added | Matthieu M. | @Ant: At the last census we did, 25% of the users of the website I am working where still using IE6 ... so we need to accomodate its engine, indeed (even though we definitely don't make the site slick there). We were tempted to use "You are using an obsolete browser" banner... | |
| May 26, 2011 at 14:08 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Robert | ||
| Dec 17, 2010 at 16:14 | comment | added | Ant | The StackOverflow team put lots of effort into making the site degrade gracefully in browsers without JavaScript. The only browser I use that doesn't have JavaScript is the one in my crappy Blackberry Pearl, which won't load StackOverflow because the webpages contain too much data. Trying to design for obsolete browsers for crap platforms/your grandmother is a waste of time because there are probably other problems - IE6's rendering engine, for example - that you'll spend far more time on. Making your site work for disabled users, etc, is, however, a worthwhile goal. | |
| Dec 14, 2010 at 0:43 | comment | added | PeterL | +1 for developing first without JS, then adding enhancements. This has been the proper way to create web sites for ages. If your site doesn't work for the base case (a simple browser like one might find on the old computer your grandmother uses, the mobile you use, and the search indexer a large search provider uses), you really don't have any idea when you might be losing views/sales. Developing for no JS isn't difficult. No JS users don't need all the flashy animations and rounded boxes, but the site better work. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 15:21 | comment | added | Neil Aitken | How about charity and government sites which are required by law to have certain usability requirements. I had to develop a site for a major charity, it works great with JS turned off but still has nice JS enchacnemnts that make the site a bit more responsive and modern. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 14:47 | comment | added | user8685 | Well if you're relying on JS where you don't in fact need it, you're doing it wrong. As good time as any to start doing things right. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 14:35 | comment | added | Hardwareguy | I think the onus is more on you as a noscripter to decide if a site is worth turning on javascript than for the sites to bend over backwards for the minority. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 14:32 | comment | added | user8685 | No, in 2011 I actually expect JS-broken sites to be finally fixed. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 14:25 | comment | added | Hardwareguy | So instead of delivering features for the 99% of people with javascript turned on, I should bust my hump making everything either: not use javascript, or worse, do everything 2 ways so it gracefully degrades? I feel the same way about turning off cookies. It's almost 2011, you should expect sites to be pretty much broken without javascript. | |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 14:04 | history | edited | user8685 | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 209 characters in body |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 13:53 | history | edited | user8685 | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 244 characters in body; added 73 characters in body |
| Dec 13, 2010 at 13:48 | history | answered | user8685 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |