• Logged-in sites

JavaScript vs No JavaScript War of May 2016

"Regressive Web Apps"

https://adactio.com/journal/10708

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774

The geeks get fired up easily, and I like it.

Both sides are right.

Logged-in sites

When I log into sites that provide functions such as:

• email
• server hosting (managing DNS)
• tax preparing
• banking
• publishing

I expect some kind of JavaScript enhanced interface, and when it is done elegantly, the experience is pleasant and satisfactory. I complete the desired tasks, and I move on.

Could those web sites/apps/services function with JavaScript disabled? Probably, but the experience could be a bit clunkier and slower.

When just enough JavaScript is used, then that's fine. Elegance over extravagance. The focus should be on utility.

All of my web publishing apps can create and edit text with the HTML textarea box. But the apps also provide the option to create and edit text with a simple JavaScript editor, which I enjoy using.

I started this post by adding a small amount of text into the textarea box and saving it. I was going to go do something else and come back to this later, but I decided to write more. Therefore I edited this post by loading it into the JavaScript editor. When I write long, I li

When I access sites that do not require me to login, and those sites are focused on marketing a movie, a game, or it's an artist's website, then I expect a fancy experience that makes heavy use of JavaScript. I'm not concerned about page size nor page load speed. I'm not interested in utility. I'm interested in elegance.

I like reading text-heavy content sites with JavaScript disabled because I'm not logged into the sites.

My weather app http://toledoweather.info uses jQuery Mobile. It could function with JavaScript disabled, but I like it the way it is.