| > it's too hard It's only hard if you want it to be hard. Your tools should be handling most of it for you. If they don't, pick tools that aren't broken or badly designed. When I was writing websites in Rails 2.x, progressive enhancement was usually automatic (same views are rendered as a page or a dynamically-loaded partial). Saying "It's hard because I want to write over-complicated pages with badly designed tools" isn't good engineering or good design. > most users run with their browser's default settings How, exactly, do you know this? If the answer is "analytics", you are missing an increasing amount of data. > constantly evolving platform Which is why you progressively enhance pages. Those of us that disable javascript for safety usually get blamed when this topic is brought up, but the main reason for progressive enhancement is that it's defense in depth. You don't know what the browser is, what options it has set, what bugs it may or may not have, or if extra page assets even made it successfully over the network. Not bothering with progressive enhancement is shoddy programming for much the same reason you shouldn't skip the test for NULL after calling fopen(3). edit: grammar |