• Vincent@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Note there’s a group of users that larger than the group of users without JS (for whatever reason): users of assistive technology. And they don’t even have a choice.

    While I’m all for considering the needs of every user… If you get to the point where you’re worrying about no-JS users, I hope you’ve already considered the needs of people with disabilities, whether temporary or permanent.

    Edit: oh right, wanted to add: just making a site work without JS doesn’t automatically make it accessible to people with special needs.

    • ozr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      No-JS pages that fully comply with WAI ARIA are much better for users of assistive technology than any single page web app can ever hope to be. All the myriad states that an interactive JS page can enter are absolutely never ever properly tested for disabled users, and even after full expensive testing, just a little change in the JS can ruin it all again. While with WAI ARIA you can just quickly assert that the page is compliant with a checker before pushing it to live.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        This is both factually incorrect, and ignores the original point.

        First of all, no you cannot just run an automatic WAI ARIA checker. That will highlight some surface level basic structural issues but in no way is adequate testing for a pleasant accessible UX.

        Secondly, modern frameworks like React and Angular have the same ARIA validation utilities. It does not matter whether components are loaded in dynamically by the framework as long as they’re defined in the codebase where linters and code analyzers can run.

        Thirdly, you’re ignoring the actual point that is being made. You know as well as I do, that virtually nowhere actually puts serious effort and usability testing into websites making sure their websites are accessible, and that directly impacts the lives of millions of people who are cut off from the world of technology because of a disability.

        Until you’re making all of your websites and apps accessible by second nature (i.e. until at a bare minimum you have your Web Accessibility Specialist certification), then focusing your time and efforts on catering to a niche ideological no JS crowd is quite frankly somewhat cruel and self serving.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      They overlap. Js is a shit technology for the blind.

      Dynamic sites that move / hide / unhide components as you do things are unhelpful and confusing. A screen reader will tell you what’s under the cursor right now. If that changes, you don’t get notified that you’re now pointing at something else.

      Static sites are better for accessibility too.

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They can overlap, yes. Static sites are definitely not automatically better for accessibility.

    • Static_Rocket@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Doesn’t avoiding JS typically structure a website in such a way that the browsers built-in assistive services can cover it easier?

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Not necessarily, unfortunately. (Though I guess technically it’s easier to throw up barriers using JS, but it’s not an inherent quality, and leaving it out doesn’t automatically make it good.)

        • xthexder@l.sw0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          30 minutes ago

          I’m curious what parts would be challenging to use with a screen reader? If a site just has basic links and no JS, I can’t really think of anything unless the tab layout is somehow completely shuffled due CSS.

  • Go-On-A-Steam-Train@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Hmm…this has me thinking, maybe I’ll change up my Hugo site a little, so that there’s no dropdown menu - it’s the only thing javascript is needed for.

    Thank you for this, some points that I’d not even considered, and a helpful reminder to myself to try and get that javascript from 99% to 100% unused. :)

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    People should not be prioritizing no-JS users. No one turns off JavaScript.

    If you keep the JS to a minmum, you have

    1. less work maintining that shit, HTML/CSS is patient
    2. better user experience

    So much forms and textboxes don’t save content anymore after a reload, because it’s dynamically loaded from somewhere or even a <div> frame handled entirely by JS. Buttons/Checkboxes that don’t work, it’s sad.

  • SpicyLizards@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Sadly, the rise of frameworks and SAAS have really killed security and accessibility through enforcement of JS.

    ‘Back in the day’ performance, download size, backwards compatibility, and non-js functionality was expected. Now it’s not even on the radar for most big corps/agencies. Many places I’ve worked don’t even care about responsiveness, which is crazy.

    Now, there are so many 25mb websites that are unusable without JS or the right device…

  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    20 hours ago

    The point is: a lot of people browsing your site will at least temporarily have a no-JS experience without intentionally doing so.

    💯

  • PunkRockSportsFan@fanaticus.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    JavaScript sucks. I hate using it I hate coding it.

    I whitelist js sources on my personal computer.

    Only absolutely necessary for function scripts get loaded.

    If they ask me to disable the adblocker I blacklist the domain.

    • mesa@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      I’ve done more than 18 years of dev work. I only hate js. All the other parts of the job are fine. Other languages are fine as well. I’ve had to learn so many. Hell I know cobol right along side ruby.

      Js sucks. It sucks to debug. Its frameworks still have issues with basic stuff like many to many relationships.

      All the solutions that don’t use or use it sparingly work for years. The ones that rely on the language usually die a firey death by npm/yarn or get deprecated within 6 months.

        • mesa@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Modern day php and laravel is actually not terrible.

          But yeah I agree with you.

          • msage@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Laravel is shit.

            I can believe it became popular only because devs don’t care about the code.

      • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Its frameworks still have issues with basic stuff like many to many relationships.

        Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean ORMs? Which one and when did you try it?

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Javascript is like Dungeons and dragons. It’s a mess, weighed down by legacy decisions, too heavy in some places and too light in others, and used in far more places than it should be. It also has some diehard fans, and some diehard fans who have never used anything else.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    Lmao, oh yes, let’s go back to the golden age of every app having all of its logic running on centralized servers, rather being able to easily create cross platform client side distributed applications.

    The “no-js” philosophy is fundamentally at odds with a future of distributed, OS agnostic, application development.

    It remembers the web when the web was simpler, and ignores that that was the era of dll hell and applications being locked to specific OSes. The modern web is the most successful cross platform development framework by orders of magnitude,it’s all based on open internationally agreed on standards, and it is vastly simplifying and detangling the overall computing environment / platforms that we used to be locked to.

    Just use a framework like Nextjs or it’s open source off shoots / clones and get the best of both static pre rendering and dynamic on the fly rendering.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I use utilities like unlock origin, a pihole, etc to block trackers and ad network requests without blocking literally all logic that can run on a page, which works great as an interim solution.

        And the long term solution to advertising and tracking is legislation, not throwing out a computer’s ability to compute.

  • tauren@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    A lot of people who shared this sentiment were hung up on the idea that “no one turns off JS.” But some people do, for a variety of good reasons!

    What % are we talking about? 50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%? People make choices, but those are their choices. I need to get the job done and I can’t cater to everyone’s needs.

    • Corbin@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Forget about your job for a moment. In general, why are you willing to set a threshold on how accessible your work is? I urge you to forget about how callous your employer wants you to be.

      • tauren@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        You call people callous for using js? 😂 Sorry, I’m not interested in a conversation with a fanatic because that kind of arguments have zero value.