: which means that for some sites -- more than I think a lot of old hands want to admit -- it's reasonable
-
-
: so blanket "things should work without JS" statements are, in my view, not even wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
: govt information/service websites? Hell yes it should work without JS. Some plain documents too.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
this point confuses me . So there's value in it for some important services? But not the sites we use most?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @scottjehl @sil
: this is where the religion breaks down: the sites we use most can afford to build multiple versions
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
: the economic argument hinges on being price sensitive to dev costs. FB, Google, etc. simply aren't.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
we're talking about an evidence-driven approach to increase resilience that *regularly* helps us all...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @scottjehl @slightlylate and
I’ve watched gmail's spinner many times, waiting for js to provide what html should have. It happens a lot.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @scottjehl @sil
: ...and you'll have noticed a link on that page to the "plain HTML" version
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
that is a terrible pattern to advocate. The burden should be on the developer, not the user.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
: I'm not "advocating" anything; I'm failing to be shrill/angry about legit business decisions when harm is low
-
-
: and, just to make sure we're on the same page, my view is that most script on the web today is a bug
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
: script is the primary vehicle by which user experiences are degraded today; that's *terrible*
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.