I agree with the principle of this, but i disagree with including the javascript-is-disabled errors. If you browse the internet with one of the most important components of the internet disabled, you're going to find that a lot of stuff is broken, and displaying a warning that "hey, things are going to be broken here" is preferable to just displaying broken stuff.
You might be surprised at what can be accomplished with HTML and CSS alone. Most of github.com works just fine without Javascript. Much of Twitter and Facebook work too. Facebook does give a warning, but they say you should enable Javascript "for a better experience" instead of "for any experience."
I agree that showing a "hey this is broken" warning is better than rendering a totally broken page, but it's still not as good as presenting at least a partially working version, perhaps minus all of the usual bells and whistles. Now, of course, this is not super-feasible if you've chosen to build most of your site using client-side code, especially if that's where most of the rendering happens. But then again, the lack of server-side rendering is the obvious downside of building your site that way.
I understand the necessity of Javascript if you have a web app, but a lot of sites fail to display a page of text or a list of links if Javascript is disabled [1]. In my view, this is poor practice. What seems to be happening is that more and more people are using Javascript frameworks to build web sites (not web apps). This probably makes things easier for the developer. I'm not convinced it always makes for a better experience for users.
Could not agree more! We have an mainly internal-only app that I work on that started out as PHP+HTML+CSS only and then over the years JS has been bolted on in various places. At first it was just to make life easier (Autocomplete, minor AJAX) but now we have entire components that will not function without JS and could not function without JS. Recently some devs have pushed for supporting browsers without JS enabled and I have been vehemently against it for a couple reasons:
1) MAJOR parts of our app will not and can not work without JS. Period, exclamation point.
2) Because of point 1 it doesn't make sense to waste dev time on making some views work with/without JS (We are a younger company and don't have time to waste on something like this especially when it isn't public-facing, not to mention QA can't handle testing everything twice).
3) Even if V1 of a component does support both JS and no JS there is no guarantee that future updates will be able to keep feature-parity or have time to code for that.
For me JS is part of the web, not an optional add-on. It would be like saying "make a webpage that works with HTML" (IMHO).
I also feel that it's not fair to complain about the GOOGLE CHROME app store requiring GASP GOOGLE CHROME (Same for GOOGLE cloud print). Not shit sherlock. As for Apple not allowing their video feeds on anything but Safari+OS X I think this is BS, there is no good reason I can think of to alienate so many people on other OS's especially since I would think THOSE are the people you might want to reach with your keynotes to convince them why they should switch.
So while I like the idea of this Tumblr I can't help but think the JS/Google Chrome examples don't really fit and distract from the overall message. To be honest looking through the Tumblr again the ONLY valid concern is the one with Apple's keynote streaming, the other ones make complete sense. How is it Google's fault that they are pushing the envelope in terms of what is possible, even Google doesn't have the time/resources to make every one of their ideas (which may or may not make it long term) work across the board and that is their prerogative.
Javascript is not an important component if the internet. You can argue it is an important component of the web, but even that is pretty sketchy. I do browse without javascript. And 90%+ of the sites I have to turn it on for are just text. Javascript being required for webapps makes sense. Javascript being required for every blog on the planet does not.
While I agree that a user with JavaScript disabled should not expect all fancy features to work, the site should still be able to present its main content in a non-broken visual environment. A minimal version built only with HTML and CSS, which is then expanded upon with JavaScript.
This does appear to be the case with the first warning published on the blog, where the site is put into a "read-only mode" and I disagree with it being listed there, but I come across many other sites which do not display any form of content at all when JavaScript is disabled.
The point is not being open, the point is platform lockin. Once you accept it, you will "never" be able to leave chrome because you have all of your things in chrome apps now.
It was a huge effort to leave the Microsoft lockin back then, and the Web(togheter with Linux, GNU and open source), a open platform did it! It was like the 'man in the moon' back then; And now we are simply going back, and we are just repeating the same mistakes again
On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content.
On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements.
I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.
As someone who also enjoys building rich interactions as well, I find that it's just a matter of understanding the trade-offs.
Requiring Javascript support is sort of like relying heavily on the latest HTML or CSS features (a recent example: WebRTC). I have to consider what happens in browsers where the feature is unsupported or disabled, and if I'm okay with narrowing those visitors out of my userbase, then I move forward. Otherwise I make sure that something is in place for them to fall-back on.
Javascript is a bit tricker than, say, the fancier CSS selectors, because I often rely on Javascript for polyfills/webshims, etc, and you can't polyfill a lack of Javascript. But when I can I still make use of that old "progressive enhancement" idea by starting with the basic HTML/CSS elements required to make a feature work, and then enhancing it with Javascript and more modern styling. It doesn't work everywhere, and certainly not in cases where most of the work is done client-side, but I still get plenty of miles out of that technique.
IE and Safari have self-interest motivated reasons for not supporting webrtc and for propagating their own technology, so no, I don't agree with this. I'm not going to avoid building apps that make use of technology that companies like Apple and Microsoft don't implement, and I don't care if that this is a problem for people. These companies don't really want to support the web as a platform. They want a crippled web because it beats their ecosystem lock in.
Not really sure what the point of this is. How do Google Now and GMail Offline == 'The Web'? They are specific Apps designed to work in a specific manner, they are not 'the web'. GMail does work with any browser when accessed via 'the web'.
100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn't they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite.
a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that's because I don't use Opera anymore!
Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary's Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.
"Javascript apps don't work when I turn off Javascript :( :( :( :( :( :("
If you think the things made by jerks like me aren't part of the web or whatever, then fine. You stay on your version of the web and I'll stay on mine, and never the twain shall meet.
.....Until you actually need to do something useful.
Can you provide an example of a useful web-based activity that can't be done without javascript, other than web-based games?
I've seen a huge number of sites over the years stop working because they redesign to incorporate javascript; yet, when I visit them at work (with a javascript-enabled browser) their shiny new site doesn't actually have any new features.
Things that don't need javascript:
--Form verification (you should always be doing this on the server, and optionally in client-side javascript)
--<video> tag
--Popup site menus
--Web-based chat
--Webmail
--Message board comments (unless you locked yourself into Disqus)
The web has moved so far away from its original purpose that we need something to fill the role the web was originally supposed to be for. I hate having to have a massive complex piece of software that takes up a GB of RAM and includes an entire programming language just to be able to view simple text documents that link to each other.
I agree. Browsing is important enough that there should be browsers just for browsing.
What we have now are browsers that support browsing but also support access to web applications. The need to serve two masters makes the browsers we have now suboptimal for just browsing.
In particular, a browser just for browsing would be able to be significantly simpler than a browser that serves two masters, and as a general rule, when we are talking about something as complicated as a browser, making a program simpler makes it more reliable and makes it easier for a human to predict what it will do and consequently makes it less frustrating to use.
The web IS for everyone - even for those who want to make proprietary apps and pages. I don't see a problem with any of these examples unless I missed the one that tax dollars paid for.
[+] [-] notatoad|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Smudge|11 years ago|reply
I agree that showing a "hey this is broken" warning is better than rendering a totally broken page, but it's still not as good as presenting at least a partially working version, perhaps minus all of the usual bells and whistles. Now, of course, this is not super-feasible if you've chosen to build most of your site using client-side code, especially if that's where most of the rendering happens. But then again, the lack of server-side rendering is the obvious downside of building your site that way.
[+] [-] chestnut-tree|11 years ago|reply
[1] Some examples of sites that won't display anything if Javascript is disabled (even though they're most displaying text): http://googlecommerce.blogspot.co.uk/ http://googleandyourbusiness.blogspot.co.uk/
[+] [-] joshstrange|11 years ago|reply
1) MAJOR parts of our app will not and can not work without JS. Period, exclamation point.
2) Because of point 1 it doesn't make sense to waste dev time on making some views work with/without JS (We are a younger company and don't have time to waste on something like this especially when it isn't public-facing, not to mention QA can't handle testing everything twice).
3) Even if V1 of a component does support both JS and no JS there is no guarantee that future updates will be able to keep feature-parity or have time to code for that.
For me JS is part of the web, not an optional add-on. It would be like saying "make a webpage that works with HTML" (IMHO).
I also feel that it's not fair to complain about the GOOGLE CHROME app store requiring GASP GOOGLE CHROME (Same for GOOGLE cloud print). Not shit sherlock. As for Apple not allowing their video feeds on anything but Safari+OS X I think this is BS, there is no good reason I can think of to alienate so many people on other OS's especially since I would think THOSE are the people you might want to reach with your keynotes to convince them why they should switch.
So while I like the idea of this Tumblr I can't help but think the JS/Google Chrome examples don't really fit and distract from the overall message. To be honest looking through the Tumblr again the ONLY valid concern is the one with Apple's keynote streaming, the other ones make complete sense. How is it Google's fault that they are pushing the envelope in terms of what is possible, even Google doesn't have the time/resources to make every one of their ideas (which may or may not make it long term) work across the board and that is their prerogative.
[+] [-] imanaccount247|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zirro|11 years ago|reply
This does appear to be the case with the first warning published on the blog, where the site is put into a "read-only mode" and I disagree with it being listed there, but I come across many other sites which do not display any form of content at all when JavaScript is disabled.
[+] [-] Siecje|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prezjordan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oscargrouch|11 years ago|reply
It was a huge effort to leave the Microsoft lockin back then, and the Web(togheter with Linux, GNU and open source), a open platform did it! It was like the 'man in the moon' back then; And now we are simply going back, and we are just repeating the same mistakes again
[+] [-] jashkenas|11 years ago|reply
1. The vast majority of things on the Chrome Web Store are web apps, not browser extensions.
2. Should GMail really only be able to work offline in Chrome?
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indubitably|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davegauer|11 years ago|reply
On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content.
On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements.
I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.
[+] [-] Smudge|11 years ago|reply
Requiring Javascript support is sort of like relying heavily on the latest HTML or CSS features (a recent example: WebRTC). I have to consider what happens in browsers where the feature is unsupported or disabled, and if I'm okay with narrowing those visitors out of my userbase, then I move forward. Otherwise I make sure that something is in place for them to fall-back on.
Javascript is a bit tricker than, say, the fancier CSS selectors, because I often rely on Javascript for polyfills/webshims, etc, and you can't polyfill a lack of Javascript. But when I can I still make use of that old "progressive enhancement" idea by starting with the basic HTML/CSS elements required to make a feature work, and then enhancing it with Javascript and more modern styling. It doesn't work everywhere, and certainly not in cases where most of the work is done client-side, but I still get plenty of miles out of that technique.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] swartkrans|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _mulder_|11 years ago|reply
100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn't they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite.
a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that's because I don't use Opera anymore!
Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary's Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.
[+] [-] TarpitCarnivore|11 years ago|reply
But last I checked Offline Gmail does not. Which I think is the point this Tumblr is trying to make.
[+] [-] serve_yay|11 years ago|reply
If you think the things made by jerks like me aren't part of the web or whatever, then fine. You stay on your version of the web and I'll stay on mine, and never the twain shall meet.
.....Until you actually need to do something useful.
[+] [-] aaaaaaaaaaa1234|11 years ago|reply
I've seen a huge number of sites over the years stop working because they redesign to incorporate javascript; yet, when I visit them at work (with a javascript-enabled browser) their shiny new site doesn't actually have any new features.
Things that don't need javascript:
--Form verification (you should always be doing this on the server, and optionally in client-side javascript)
--<video> tag
--Popup site menus
--Web-based chat
--Webmail
--Message board comments (unless you locked yourself into Disqus)
--Nearly everything
[+] [-] imanaccount247|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|11 years ago|reply
What we have now are browsers that support browsing but also support access to web applications. The need to serve two masters makes the browsers we have now suboptimal for just browsing.
In particular, a browser just for browsing would be able to be significantly simpler than a browser that serves two masters, and as a general rule, when we are talking about something as complicated as a browser, making a program simpler makes it more reliable and makes it easier for a human to predict what it will do and consequently makes it less frustrating to use.
[+] [-] WorldWideWayne|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] findjashua|11 years ago|reply
That said, it's time to call bullshit on Google's whole 'do no evil' shtick, considering how so many of their web apps only work on Chrome.