27 ms·

We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it

by frou_dh 1mo ago

zahlman 1mo ago
It is not "pride". It is a constant annoyance that web site authors feel entitled to run their code on my machine, for purposes where it's egregiously unnecessary.
- Dylan16807 1mo ago
  > egregiously unnecessary So are you going to admit your initial reaction was wrong here? Despite how this page could be improved (a warning and a partial conclusions view with javascript off), the core purpose of the javascript is to let you play the game and watch replays, something that is very basic automation and impractical to do without code.
  - zahlman 1mo ago
    It is egregiously unnecessary to expect me to play the game in order to present the finding. Or even discuss the finding. I will not admit my reaction was wrong, because it was not wrong. If a submission is titled "Why some people mow a lawn better than others", it is completely reasonable to expect a JavaScript-disabled version of the page to display text which describes why some people mow a lawn better than others. I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed.
    - Dylan16807 1mo ago
      You are allowed to skip the game. But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. The javascript, while flawed, is there for a valid reason. > I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed. They use the replays to convey it. Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things.
      - zahlman 1mo ago
        > You are allowed to skip the game. No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content. > But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. It hasn't been offered to me. What is egregiously unnecessary is the requirement to enable JavaScript in order to read plain text explaining the conclusion. Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort. > Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things. No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
        Dylan16807 1mo ago
        > No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content. I meant the reader in general. > It hasn't been offered to me. The game has been offered to you. You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. The problem is not having a fallback that warns you. Which simplifies to: The site uses javascript for a valid reason. It's valid even though you don't want it. > Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort. > No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works. Do you get this mad at videos? Some things are fundamentally not text. Progressive enhancement is a general purpose strategy, not a requirement for every situation.
        zahlman 1mo ago
        > The game has been offered to you. Again, this is the text that is shown to me: > You’ve probably done something like mow a lawn or vacuum a rug hundreds of times without thinking much about it. Some part of your brain works out a route that’s usually good enough to get the job done. People are actually pretty good at this, and better than you’d guess for a problem that is hard for computers. We wanted to see it for ourselves, so we built a lawn and asked people to mow it. What part of this mentions that the lawn they "built" is actually a simulation in a game? What part mentions that they would now like me to play it? What part says anything whatsoever about what they learned from having people play the game? > You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. No. Not having JavaScript is the default. It is expected that people can make the offer in a way that doesn't require JavaScript, because the point of making the offer is to justify the existence of the JavaScript. > a valid reason. It is not possible that there is "a valid reason" to use JavaScript to make an offer to use JavaScript. That is pure chicken and egg. The way you make the offer is to use text to convey what the purpose of the JavaScript is. > Do you get this mad at videos? If it's configured to autoplay, and consists of someone droning over irrelevant imagery saying something that would have been better presented as plain text? Hell yes. Why wouldn't I?

We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it

by frou_dh 1mo ago

We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it

It is not "pride". It is a constant annoyance that web site authors feel entitled to run their code on my machine, for purposes where it's egregiously unnecessary.

Dylan16807 1mo ago
> egregiously unnecessary So are you going to admit your initial reaction was wrong here? Despite how this page could be improved (a warning and a partial conclusions view with javascript off), the core purpose of the javascript is to let you play the game and watch replays, something that is very basic automation and impractical to do without code.
- zahlman 1mo ago
  It is egregiously unnecessary to expect me to play the game in order to present the finding. Or even discuss the finding. I will not admit my reaction was wrong, because it was not wrong. If a submission is titled "Why some people mow a lawn better than others", it is completely reasonable to expect a JavaScript-disabled version of the page to display text which describes why some people mow a lawn better than others. I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed.
  - Dylan16807 1mo ago
    You are allowed to skip the game. But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. The javascript, while flawed, is there for a valid reason. > I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed. They use the replays to convey it. Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things.
    - zahlman 1mo ago
      > You are allowed to skip the game. No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content. > But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. It hasn't been offered to me. What is egregiously unnecessary is the requirement to enable JavaScript in order to read plain text explaining the conclusion. Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort. > Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things. No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
      - Dylan16807 1mo ago
        > No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content. I meant the reader in general. > It hasn't been offered to me. The game has been offered to you. You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. The problem is not having a fallback that warns you. Which simplifies to: The site uses javascript for a valid reason. It's valid even though you don't want it. > Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort. > No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works. Do you get this mad at videos? Some things are fundamentally not text. Progressive enhancement is a general purpose strategy, not a requirement for every situation.
        zahlman 1mo ago
        > The game has been offered to you. Again, this is the text that is shown to me: > You’ve probably done something like mow a lawn or vacuum a rug hundreds of times without thinking much about it. Some part of your brain works out a route that’s usually good enough to get the job done. People are actually pretty good at this, and better than you’d guess for a problem that is hard for computers. We wanted to see it for ourselves, so we built a lawn and asked people to mow it. What part of this mentions that the lawn they "built" is actually a simulation in a game? What part mentions that they would now like me to play it? What part says anything whatsoever about what they learned from having people play the game? > You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. No. Not having JavaScript is the default. It is expected that people can make the offer in a way that doesn't require JavaScript, because the point of making the offer is to justify the existence of the JavaScript. > a valid reason. It is not possible that there is "a valid reason" to use JavaScript to make an offer to use JavaScript. That is pure chicken and egg. The way you make the offer is to use text to convey what the purpose of the JavaScript is. > Do you get this mad at videos? If it's configured to autoplay, and consists of someone droning over irrelevant imagery saying something that would have been better presented as plain text? Hell yes. Why wouldn't I?