FWIW 'isomorphic javascript' was pretty much supplanted by 'universal javascript' last year per this medium post [1]. You might consider changing the copy.
Edit: At the very least Dan Abramov (Redux creator) is ok with universal [2]
FWIW those of us in the JavaScript community who don't care to create buzzwords for everything call it JavaScript. No Isomorphic, no Universal. There's nothing different. It's just JavaScript.
On the client you wouldn't use `fs` module, but on the server you wouldn't use jQuery unless you were manipulating the dom through scraping with Cheerios.
Many people still don't agree, neither do I. There's no doubt that the term "universal" is more correct, however, languages don't work that way. In the JS land isomorphic has a very specific meaning. Universal is a flexible word. "A universal api for observables" means something (works across libraries), "An isomorphic api for observables" means something else (works across environments) .
FWIW no it wasn't. Everyone (everyone who javascripts anyways) already knows what "isomorphic javascript" means, and "Universal" is a fucking terrible name for what it is being applied to (it sounds like it is translated into all languages, or runs equally on Windows and Macs, or who knows, it's made for aliens or something).
I was under the impression that the community as a whole had agreed to switch to that term as well. :( Given your name I reckon you feel strongly about this, too.