however, as has been said a lot, http://kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html …. Maybe you now disagree?
-
-
Replying to @sil
: I care about interactive pixels; I don't care how they get there. See:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5X_Ot-R6lo …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
I have seen it. Are we now of the opinion that requiring client side JS to load for a site to work is OK?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sil
: I don't know? All I can say is that you're gonna have a really hard time in the Web Component era unless some subtlety is allowed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
yup. But to me that's not a reason to retract the view, it's a reason why web components need to justify their existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sil
: again, most of your thing is about "why aren't these pixels loaded yet?". I care about outcomes. If JS can be fast, so be it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate
: this was much more contingent for me until the PRPL pattern.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @sil
are there solid numbers as to how much of the web browsing population do not have (or turn off intentionally) JS?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rchrdnsh @slightlylate
http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2015/06/28/availability/ … and http://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/why-availability/ … link to some and why the numbers may not be what you think
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
: I think this is an important discussion; glad to see it focused on outcomes for users.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.