Post AW35d9LE8TwEysZHd2 by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
(DIR) More posts by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
(DIR) Post #AW2UwDyPRSDQXq7ybo by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-26T07:06:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Once again, the plaintive wail rings out across the high plains of the web. Why, oh why, can't I at least see some text and images on this "web page" without JavaScript turned on?!?https://confs.tech/#MakeJavaScriptOptional
(DIR) Post #AW2WkQO7eruvTvejQG by megfault@chaos.social
2023-05-26T07:26:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Obviously, there is no such thing as a web without js. This page is the proof. 😏
(DIR) Post #AW2Xm8ONdZ90Ca9iDo by screwtape@mastodon.sdf.org
2023-05-26T07:37:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey #links2gang
(DIR) Post #AW2xmFexDOXLY7cmES by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-26T12:29:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@megfault> there is no such thing as a web without jsWhat was I thinking? Are web designers supposed to just use HTML and markup CSS styling so I can control how my browser displays things for my convenience? How are they to enforce their creative vision on my eyeballs without JS?!? Perish the thought... 😱
(DIR) Post #AW307YInIUnjMFXmxE by RogerBW@emacs.ch
2023-05-26T12:55:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @megfault Every page its own PDF!
(DIR) Post #AW30RF7gJaPPfMjeeO by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
2023-05-26T12:58:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @neil I hear you. About 0.01% of users of a public-service website I worked on recently had JS disabled. It was twice the effort to make the site work for those people, which our client was happy to pay for because of their universal service obligation. Admittedly these were interactive features and I agree a website should be able to offer basic content universally. I offer the figures as an explanation for why many sites might choose differently though.
(DIR) Post #AW31E34RufosTcUnj6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-26T13:07:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m0rpk> these were interactive features and I agree a website should be able to offer basic content universallyExactly. I'm happy to turn on JS for features that are difficult if not impossible to deliver in a browser without it. But I want their page to make the case for why I ought to let them run their code on my end. Refusing to deliver even text and images using only HTML/CSS, leaving me a blank page, is just lazy and rude.@neil
(DIR) Post #AW324EcgCwNhMaOJiC by sqrt2@chaos.social
2023-05-26T13:17:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey They can even run JavaScript on the server if they love it so much
(DIR) Post #AW35d9LE8TwEysZHd2 by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
2023-05-26T13:57:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey @neil Sure, and I do sympathise with that position. If just 0.01% of users have JS disabled, though, I can see why in many contexts people would decide it’s not worth caring about. Most of that 0.01% will be failure cases too (eg a JS resource failing to download) rather than people making a conscious choice about it.
(DIR) Post #AW3GjIkx8wJTPjjlc8 by pyperkub@mastodon.social
2023-05-26T16:01:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Well, to be fair, that text and those images are usually Ads ;)
(DIR) Post #AW41fEkgmi8FgNB4Do by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-27T00:47:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sqrt2 > They can even run JavaScript on the server if they love it so muchThis is such a terrible idea from an engineering POV, yet disturbingly common. As the old saying goes, when a builder really likes their hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I can't explain why this creates huge problems in software better than this classic: https://drewdevault.com/2016/11/24/Electron-considered-harmful.html
(DIR) Post #AW42ewoXZqYU0GPAPI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-27T00:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m0rpk> If just 0.01% of users have JS disabled, though, I can see why in many contexts people would decide it’s not worth caring aboutFirstly, you can see how this is a chicken/egg problem, right? If the majority of the web is completely broken without JS, then most people won't go to the trouble of trying to limit their exposure. Secondly, a lot of people limit their JS exposure indirectly, through tracking blockers ("ad blockers"), and have no idea why stuff sometimes breaks.(1/2)@neil
(DIR) Post #AW4301vTlZhZwGhfBA by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-27T01:02:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m0rpk Thirdly, most people have no idea allowing JS is a choice or what the consequences are. I spent years getting frustrated with browsers crashing my OS before I discovered NoScript. Finally, there are a whole bunch of reasons to minimize JS even if most people have it turned on. Accessibility for the blind, people on dial-up/ patchy rural broadband/ metered net connections etc. JS bloat serves these people very poorly.(2/2)@neil
(DIR) Post #AW48H1NnXTDSwos2Pw by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-27T02:01:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baldur Any thoughts on best practice for the use of JavaScript on the web?@m0rpk @neil
(DIR) Post #AW49zCFaav9ZLgew4W by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-27T02:20:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pyperkub > to be fair, that text and those images are usually AdsEven this would be marginally better than the tabula rasa that confs.tech gives me with JS turned off. But with JS turned on, I see plenty of text that could easily be displayed without requiring my browser to run JS.
(DIR) Post #AW4dURNRIkS7uXa7Tk by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
2023-05-27T07:51:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey I agree with you on all of that. Particularly accessibility. I just think there is a conflict of incentives that explains why many sites end up not following the best practices.@baldur @neil
(DIR) Post #AW4gdM5YdHqPyh9yvQ by sqrt2@chaos.social
2023-05-27T08:26:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Let's be fair, though, running nodejs on a server is not like running electron. In fact, there's a very good chance that if this service here were a nodejs rather than a Rails application, it'd be quite a bit more resource efficient.
(DIR) Post #AW6L68B7cW94Ygzyjo by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-28T03:34:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@m0rpk> there is a conflict of incentives that explains why many sites end up not following the best practices.Fair point. Maybe there needs to be regulations that oblige owners to make websites accessible, like some jurisdictions have for public buildings, even ones that are privately owned.@baldur @neil
(DIR) Post #AW6Lg66ymXrIZcD9sm by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2023-05-28T03:41:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sqrt2> running nodejs on a server is not like running electronTrue, but as Drew says..."When Node.js happened, a bunch of developers who never bothered to learn more than JavaScript for their frontend work suddenly could write their crappy code on the backend, too... Do they build square airplanes so they don’t have to learn about aerodynamics, then just throw on an extra ten engines to make up for it? NO!"From what I've read, running JS on a server is a terrible idea.
(DIR) Post #AW6ib8UKoeObRUjrBg by m0rpk@mastodon.radio
2023-05-28T07:57:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey In fact the UK does have those regulations for public websites and those of organisations in receipt of public money. They must meet the WCAG v2.1 AA standard.@baldur @neil