π₯ Doctor, my leg hurts when I stab it with this JavaScript!
-
Make me do work... grumble grumble...
-
Try explaining to your employer why it took twice as fucking long to do something. The explanation "Some nerds on thedailywtf.com forms won't like your website with JS disabled" won't cut it.
My team has several tiers of quotation for internal tooling:
1x: Fat client desktop app, fully accessible, HTTP APIs where necessary.
4x: Web app, no JS
8x: Web app, JS only.
16x: Web app, both JS and no JS.Manglement is literally ONLY interested in "Web app, JS only". Because they like wasting time and money.
When I can help it, I literally only use HTTP for APIs. User interfaces in browsers? No thanks.
-
Wow, how did such a boring pedantic discussion explode like that? You guys are amazing.
-
Blending in with the other admins are we?
-
I'm not cool with it because after it was clear there was some kind of a problem, you kept fucking twisting the knife like a douchebag.
Maybe she shouldn't have lost her temper.
-
Maybe, but that's still no excuse for you to keep twisting the knife.
-
Maybe she shouldn't have lost her temper.
When everyone rolls around in the shit, everyone stinks. In other words: there's enough blame to go around.
Now, can we let this go and move on?
-
Dang, I'm late to the party it seems.
A philosophical note, if you remember Lehman's laws on software evolution [Lehaman 1980]. The first law mentions how functionality tends to drift inwards in a system.
... It took JavaScript to reverse that trend. :-)
-
Try explaining to your employer why it took twice as fucking long to do something. The explanation "Some nerds on thedailywtf.com forms won't like your website with JS disabled" won't cut it.
Christ, how long does it take you to add
```html
<noscript>This site requires JavaScript</noscript>?!
-
Christ, how long does it take you to add
How long does it take to realize that JS is basically a requirement these days, if we're asking about people's windmill-tilting?
-
How long does it take to realize that JS is basically a requirement these days, if we're asking about people's windmill-tilting?
Truly a sad world we live in.
-
Truly a sad world we live in.
Especially when, in this advanced age, you have to manually install an extension to disable JavaScript. At that point, any page that comes up blank is telling you, passive-aggressively, you need JS enabled.
-
At that point, any page that comes up blank is telling you, passive-aggressively, you need JS enabled.
And such page should, active-aggressively, go fuck itself.
-
And such page should, active-aggressively, go fuck itself.
<noscript>Since you've disabled JavaScript, you won't be able to use this site.<noscript>
-
<noscript>Since you've disabled JavaScript, you won't be able to use this site.<noscript>
Error: Missing '/' at position 89
-
-
Hey everybody, that guy from The Horns of Nimon finally got out-overacted.
Not even close. Nobody out-overacts Soldeed.
-
How's gmail work for you sans JS?
Gmail has always had an HTML-only version available that works just fine without JS.
-
<noscript>Since you've disabled JavaScript, you won't be able to use this site.<noscript>
That's exactly what @RaceProUK asked devs to do 50+ posts ago.
-
That's exactly what @RaceProUK
asked devs toscreeched at devs who don't do 50+ posts ago.FTFY, HTH HAND etc.
-
-
Be that as it may, would it kill devs to add that one line?
Apparently so. The world is already full of bad devs, and it's got a lot who either don't consider the idea that some kook might disable JS or don't care to cater to them, and those sets overlap.
"I'm doing something that deliberately breaks the site I'm visiting! I wish the people who wrote it would put in a nice note telling me I shouldn't be doing that!"
Muting the topic now because there's nothing else worth saying on it.
-
For those who ask for use of noscript, please also note that in the HTML5 specification they actually advice against the use of it.
The noscript element is a blunt instrument. Sometimes, scripts might be enabled, but for some reason the page's script might fail. For this reason, it's generally better to avoid using noscript, and to instead design the script to change the page from being a scriptless page to a scripted page on the fly, as in the next example:
Just that the recommanded technique is not always possible, especially for those site with "heavy use of javacript" in order to do some graphics effects or try to mimic a winform application.
-
I'm open to pull requests that make this site work without JavaScript:
-
Because I thought a website was something that you go to in a browser by using a URL that starts with http.
That's not a definition. That's just a fact about 'websites'.
-
Here pull this:
<noscript>This site requires JavaScript</noscript>
Was that so hard?
-
Who says I don't? It was never my complaint, my complaint is that certain people weren't making the right sort of distinctions.
I've found over the last 5 years that it hasn't generally taken me significantly longer to Do It Right.
In fact I can still deliver Doing It Right faster than most of my colleagues can even when they are
Define "Doing it right" because "Doing it right" is very subjective especially in Web dev.
-
Define "Doing it right" because "Doing it right" is very subjective especially in Web dev.
Indeed.
Say when I develop AJAX like functionality years ago, you'd probably say the correct way to use XMLHTTP / XMLHttpRequest. However to IE 5.X and RTM version of IE6, MSXML* ActiveX plugin must be installed for this to work. And this simply has no way to work on Netscape 4.X, which still has 2-3 percent of marketshare at that time. Firefox just released 1.0 and still gaining momentum.On the other hand, iframe which was cursed by nearly every web developer as "evil" works seamlessly on every single major browsers at the time, and this holds true even up to now.
Now tell me, which of the ways is "doing it right" and which is "doing it wrong".
-
The more legs the more insecty it is to me. I don't like anything with more than 4 legs
Easy solution, pull the excess legs off, that way, everything can have 4 legs.
Housefly - 4 legs
Spider - 4 legs
Centipede - 4 legsEasy!
Just make sure you don't adopt the same policy with these things...
-
also know that the authorised users (a group of 15 people) don't have any need of assistive technologies
Until the company goes to hire someone, and the reason they can not do the job is because of your lack of ADA compliance, and sues the company.
This is actually happening more and more in the USA.
As a side note for those developing public facing sites. The current estimate is that up to 20% of the market uses one or more assistive technologies, and failure to address these results in a loss of that market.
So if you have decided not to implement these capabilities, please go to your CFO right now, and tell him/her that you have made deliberate decisions that may result in a loss of up to 20% of marker....see how that turns out.
Do a simple test. Cover your screen, turn on the screen reader....now use your application.
-
a loss of up to 20% of marker
Just telling him by scribbeling numbers on the whiteboard will probably result in 20% whiteboard marker loss
-
Until the company goes to hire someone, and the reason they can not do the job is because of your lack of ADA compliance, and sues the company.
We're ADA exempt. This is because we're not in the USA, and aren't about to relocate because we're a university. We know what environment we're in exactly.
The only authorised users of this code also have to be able to work in the labs where the instruments are installed. The labs are not friendly to someone who is restricted to a wheelchair, nor are they nice places to have restricted eyesight or reduced motor control. They're environments comparable to some types of manufacturing shop floors, except enormously cleaner (contamination is the devil). By the time someone is able to handle our instruments, they can cope with my website; I know my users by name and I know the process for selecting them. (The site does handle different font sizes gracefully, but why wouldn't you do that anyway?)
My situation is not necessarily your situation. Careful with projection of your restrictions to meβ¦
-
It was a pre-emptive strike against whoever was going to bring up the komodo variety, and a selection of others (I'm not even sure how many fins sea dragons have, though obviously they have no legs).
-
<script>alert('This comment requires javascript turned on in order to be read.');</script>
-
To be fair, I wouldn't exactly call a blankish page that says "you need Javascript" to be especially functional. It may be not "broken", but it's equally not useful. What's really annoying is this: why don't browsers detect JS is needed on a page and if its setting is turned off, inline a text warning or show a message box?
-
@mikehurley said:
I wouldn't exactly call a blankish page that says "you need Javascript" to be especially functional.
No, but at least it tells the user that the page will never load because of the user's settings, which he/she can then change (if using the site is more important than the settings), as opposed to a page that is loading discoslowly or will never load because something server-side is broken.
-
elling the user they are doing it wronk is a reall Jeff thing to do
I was thinking you mistyped again, but then I found this
-
Bum budda β¦ ah screw it.
-
birds aren't animals.
So are they vegetable or mineral?
but fish and fowl aren't meat.
Only if you're a fish-and-chipocrite.
-
@mikehurley said:
JS [ ... ] turned off [ ... ] show a message box?
I see you're new here, but I think you're going to fit in just fine. This was great.
-
I'm probably going to get whooshed, but you don't need JS enabled for the browser itself to do a call to MessageBox.Show, MessageBox or whatever your platform equivalent is.
Yeah, my account's fairly new. I've been lurking for a while. I'm pretty sure I saw the original run of the Paula Bean article.
-
If you stay a bit longer, you'll witness the demise of @PaulaBean!
-
@mikehurley said:
you don't need JS enabled for the browser itself to do a call to MessageBox.Show, MessageBox or whatever your platform equivalent is
pls send me teh codes
-
@mikehurley said:
What's really annoying is this: why don't browsers detect JS is needed on a page and if its setting is turned off, inline a text warning or show a message box?
You're right, that would be really annoying. If I added noscript and the browser popped up a message box on every single website, that'd be the first setting I turn off.
-
-
The first rule of Quit Club?
-
I have now realised I misread your first post. I thought you meant for the page to include JavaScript to tell you that JavaScript was required, which obviously isn't going to work.
But what you actually mean is for the browser to tell me I have JavaScript disabled when I view a page with JavaScript on it. In that case: Fuck you, I don't want to see that warning for every page on the entire Internet. I have JavaScript turned off (when I turn it off) for a reason. Unlike some posters here though, I expect some breakage when I do so.
-
<noscript>alert('This comment requires javascript turned on in order to be read.');</noscript>
FTFY.so it would show properly with Javascript turned off.
-
A popup dialog is probably bad idea. But it does seem odd to me, especially after having the noscript concept for as long as we have, that it's not just something the browser indicates to the user. Similar to the padlock symbol for http vs https vs bad certs. I threw a message box as a suggestion because it's simple. There's got to be something that would work well and not be a PITA.
-