(no title)
notapenny | 4 years ago
Looking at it from a business perspective, it's also a matter of cost. How big a percentage of people have JS off (I searched a bit and everything suggests low single digits, 1-2%), versus how much time do I spend making sure the site is somewhat functional to serve these people. And does somewhat functional make sense? Can they see my site but they can't go into my sales funnel without me making HTML-equivalent pages? In that case why would I bother unless that percentage of users grows to where it becomes financially interesting to me?
Still, would be nice if most sites would at least render some plain HTML fallback with a bit of info, instead of a single line on a white page saying "this doesn't work".
JohnFen|4 years ago
I don't understand what you mean here.
> Looking at it from a business perspective
Which, I suppose, is the underlying problem. In my opinion, the drive to turn websites into revenue generators has had a corrosive effect on the entire web. I suppose that I just have to accept that increasing portions of the web are going to be hostile and to be avoided. It just saddens me, as so much -- perhaps a majority -- of the web is already more of a security risk than I can bear.
> Still, would be nice if most sites would at least render some plain HTML fallback with a bit of info, instead of a single line on a white page saying "this doesn't work".
More info is better than less info, but either way, the page still won't work.
baash05|4 years ago
While I agree, there is the other side of that. They are very very expensive. Even a simple site needs servers, and devs.
> More info is better.
For who? If I tell the 2% of people out there that I sell these awesome things and they attempt to purchase them, but they can't because they have JS off, who did that knowledge help?
Now if it cost me 10k to tell the 2% they're waisting their time here, I'm out 10k and they're no better off than when they got a blank page.
News-Dog|4 years ago
baash05|4 years ago