The "look-everyone-how-i-can-do-it" idea is likely part of the reason that sites like this use an "app" framework. There is nothing sexy about simpler, less technical websites that do not use "app" frameworks.
The issue however is not the use of an Javascript app framework, the issue is that it is falsely pronounced to be "required" and users are shown a blank page or some other ungraceful failure when they turn JS off. Clearly, JS is not required to retrieve the information, as demonstrated above. Yet, the web developer is hostile to users retrieving the information with clients (user-agents) that do not cater to advertising.
In this case, the site owner is deliberately sabotaging non-JavaScript users in order to get them to run ad-tracking and analytics. There isn't actually a good-faith reason to require JavaScript here.
I must say, honestly, I don't understand the JavaScript (JS) movement. I am not a web developer, perhaps that is the reason.
IME, 9 times out of 10, web developers are using JS for non-necessary reasons. The user configurable settings of popular browsers make it easy to designate the small number of sites that actually require JS and keep JS disabled for all other sites. They anticipate that the user will not have one default JS policy for all websites. In other words, these web browsers do not expect that all users should just leave JS enabled/disabled for every website, they acknowledge there will be situations where it should be disabled.
However as we all know most users probably never change settings. Doubtful it is a coincidence that all these browsers have JS enabled by default.
The number of pages I visit that actually require JS for me to retrieve the content is so small that I can use a client that does not contain a JS interpreter. Warnings and such one finds on web pages informing users that "Javascript is required" are usually false IME. I can still retrieve the content with the use of an HTTP request and no JS.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of JS. It is nice to have a built-in interpreter in a web browser for certain uses. For example, it makes web-based commerce much easier. However, I believe the largest use of JS today is to support the internet ad industry. Without having automatic execution of code by the browser without user review, approval or even interaction, I do not believe the internet ad "industry" would exist as we know it.
I believe this not because I think having a JS or other interpreter is technically necessary, but because these companies have become wholly reliant upon it.
That's why disabling JS stopsa remarkable amount of ads and tracking.
If you are a developer, you shouldn't rely on Javascript. Yes, feel free to use Javascript to make things sexier, but the use cases where a web page should require Javascript to render properly has substantial overlap with the "we didn't think things through" slice of the Venn diagram.
If your page is unreadable with NoScript and RequestPolicy turned up to maximum paranoia, your webpage is broken.
If you're building a client-side application rather than just a web page, then it's okay if turning JS off breaks your app.
Requiring JS support to display a list of links is like requiring a user to download an application to view the site. No sane person would do this, right? Oh wait...
I think it's reasonable to assume that either JavaScript is available or the user has made the conscious decision to turn off JS; if so, that user is probably savvy enough to realize the issue and decide whether to enable JS for the particular site.
Far less reasonable is faulting a JS framework for assuming it can use JS.
Still, I agree that if JS isn't essential to the functionality of the site, a non-JS fallback should be available.
I really wish people wouldn't rely on javascript to avoid delivering a blank page to the user when they visit their site. Speaking for myself, it casts doubt onto a site when so many other websites get along fine without relying on it to deliver the content itself and this one doesn't. What are they trying to collect about me that's so much more important than delivering content.
The situation you describe is not one I experience in web APPS. I DO experience it on blogs/news ALL THE TIME and it's normally due to ads being injected. I'm sorry but that's a completely different example then what I'm talking about and rarely due to a framework. I even said:
> If we are talking about a blog then sure, needing JS is just stupid, my blog works just fine with or without JS but if I'm building a web app there is no way I can reasonably deliver both a cutting edge JS web app AND a static, submit-the-page-to-do-anything app.
With respect, I strongly disagree with your assertion that it’s the users demanding anything. Users are rarely asking for our bloated single-page apps; we just foist them on the public because we think JavaScript development is fun and cool. That’s not how we rationalize it to ourselves, of course, but it’s the truth. The majority of web sites (all newspapers, all magazines, many less trafficked social media sites, I could go on) would be served just fine with HTML, CSS, and minimal to no JavaScript.
I came to the comments just to bemoan this as well.
I see this pretty often and I have a tip for developers who really want to insist on JS without infuriating their visitors: Don't let me see the site work before intentionally breaking it to try and force me to be tracked by your marketing code.
Who said websites have to use JS? Your argument is orthogonal to companies using apps to harvest user information, and being blocked by web platform there. There's no reason Facebook, Twitter, etc. has to use JavaScript in their web experience.
I understand why you feel justified in this tone, because it would be absurd to assume a web application could work without Javascript in 2019.
But like... a static blog post? Why bother with JS at all? It seems like creating more work that necessary, bloating downloads, increasing load speed, and for no reason blocking out people with JS disabled (so like, not just people using Firefox with plugins, but people that browse from emacs or whatever... which seems weird, except those are exactly the kind of people that are also technologists building 20k side projects). Also makes accessibility harder than necessary.
I truly want to see a time within the next few years where I can barely tell the difference between a desktop app and a web app, and unfortunately for noscript users, such an experience will probably require javascript.
That's fine; believe it or not, most NoScript users are enabling a good chunk of JS (usually for your exact example of web app). What's annoying is when one opens up a link that gives the user no clues whatsoever as to it's purpose, and all that happens is a blank page pops up. No indication, like on some sites, that hey, this site is interactive and requires JS. Just a blank page. It makes one wonder why the URL was even shared.
I get the sentiment(and i'm right there with ya), but the author isn't asking for your whole website to work without JS, just to display some very basic, static stuff without Javascript. Hell, even just ignoring that JS is missing might be a better solution. That way, the user at least gets to look at the HTML and CSS, which will probably still convey enough information about the website.
I really don't understand why anyone'd even react to missing JS. Anyone willfully turning it off will be aware of that.
One problem is people reach out to client-side code earlier than they should.
90% of websites have no need for Javascript. Of those that do 90% won't be needing any "take over the world" frameworks, just little sprinkles of Javascript or jQuery.
Not to mention most required uses of Javascript are interaction related. At least let me read the landing page without having me enable javascript instead of greeting me with a blank page.
Speaking as a web developer myself, I 100% abandoned supporting users without javascript a decade ago
The number of people with JS turned off are so small they don't matter, and on top of that, they're not monetizable, so I really don't care if the site works for them.
There is virtually never any business rationale for making that extra effort.
There are certainly web apps that could not function without JavaScript. This initiative is more of a protest to shoving functionally useless JavaScript down your throat when you browse a news site or read an article.
JavaScript should progressively enhance those types of websites, and not be a strict requirement.
The issue however is not the use of an Javascript app framework, the issue is that it is falsely pronounced to be "required" and users are shown a blank page or some other ungraceful failure when they turn JS off. Clearly, JS is not required to retrieve the information, as demonstrated above. Yet, the web developer is hostile to users retrieving the information with clients (user-agents) that do not cater to advertising.
reply