Do all the things like ++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatarSign Up
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple APILearn More
I can understand JS when it makes sense. But I already stopped using JS blockers because almost all pages break somewhere without it for no good reason.
For example gog.com doesn't display thumbnails or system requirements without JS. Who the hell thought this is a good idea? It's static text and pictures.
Froot78915yServer side rendering has its place but doing it all server side is a horrible idea.
Of course the logic you have has to make sense
My opinion if it isn't a personal project there should always be a proper HTML fallback. If there isn't enough time for one then I think priorities should be reevaluated or the JS frontend version be put on hold. At least the core features and stuff like signing in, signing out, and deleting one's account should be accessible without.
But then again I'm highly biased because most JS frontends I've seen that have no HTML fallback also took a huge dump on accessibility, applying the same argument (and I don't think there is any excuse for not considering accessibility)
@ctwx like I said, I'm mostly against it cause proper accessibility in a JS application with dynamically updating parts of the page requires a bit more work and effort, and I'd take a properly accessible site over a fancy async dynamic whooshy one any day. And well, most "fancy" projects I've seen so far have had horrible accessibility because there just wasn't time for it, even though the devs on it would've made a pure HTML version properly accessible just through routine and standards alone.
And then there's marketing. You may not care for the site's looks but most users do. Being a company you will care more about the 99% who likes nice design than the 1% who doesn't.