[claviska]

> I’m not saying that JavaScript shouldn’t be used, but that the absence of JavaScript should be supported in general, even if it isn’t perfect.

Aside from an SEO perspective, I don't understand why this is still such a popular perspective. JavaScript is so ubiquitous that turning it off is akin to removing the wheels from a car and expecting it to drive. Perhaps some cars will, but would you really want to take a trip in it?

To your point, I tried disabling JS on Amazon recently and I was able to make a purchase, but the website felt broken, the product preview carousel didn't work, and I definitely didn't want to use it like that again. IMO, you can't disable JavaScript in 2020 and have a good web experience.

[smoe]

I have js disabled by default for years now, mainly because for the type of content I randomly access, the percieved speed is a whole lot faster. E.g. I can start reading an article immediatly instead of waiting for content to stop jumping around or watching a spinner while a couple 100 kloc worth of js load an convert a bunch text in json to a bunch of text in html.

As an additional bonus I can get trough reading an entire article without newsletter signup modals being shoven down my throat.

For sites I use regularly and I as a user benefit from more interactivity not just the advertisers, I hit the toggle switch to activate js.

But I dont think this is a particularly popular or that common a perspectice. If it werent for fear of a SEO penalty the web would be much less usable without js activated.

[chrismorgan]

This is exactly why I disable it: better speed, fewer annoyances, with bonuses of less data transferred and more privacy.

[claviska]

> I can start reading an article immediatly instead of waiting for content to stop jumping around or watching a spinner while a couple 100 kloc worth of js load an convert a bunch text in json to a bunch of text in html.

I absolutely understand this point. It's the most frustrating thing about this decade of the web or, really, ever since browsers disabled popups.

However, I don't think this is a case against JavaScript as much as it is about poor web design practices. This is what happens when websites force feed visitors garbage to get clicks and when developers add things without regard to performance.

[smoe]

I'm not against JavaScript (or any other languages running in the browser for that matter). Ironically, when I started doing this I was a full time frontend dev.

For me this was just a "hack" to significantly improve my browsing experience. While I'm not advocating people doing the same, I disagree with the sentiment that absolutely everything is an app and static documents being an archaic concept.

One of my gripe is with people claiming that the absolute priority is the user and their experience, while all they really care about is conversion numbers and how quickly the devs can churn out new features.

And the other aspect is the same why I don't like this image so popular with product managers

https://blog.crisp.se/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Making-sens...

While I do get and agree with the main point they are making, the image also implies that the more complex a product is, the better. But a car is not inherently better, more useful than a bicycle. The latter will outperform it in many use cases.

I see it the same with websites/apps. If you are building an browser based photoshop alternative, by all means throw all the shiny tools and frameworks at it, I'm willing to let it load a little and I'm not expecting it to work blazingly fast on a 50$ phone and a spotty 3G connection. But for a textual content based website, maybe consider letting the user just hop on and get going.

And I do think framework independent web components are the way to go for this btw.

[1337shadow]

Well maybe one could argue that you can have a decent browsing experience, I like to be able to view content without JS enabled (I'm a uMatrix user myself).

But as you say, as soon as you want to do something like a form that's a bit complicated then of course some browser side interactivity is going to be very helpful.

[claviska]

Fair enough. Thanks for posting this, btw!

[1337shadow]

But your point makes a lot of sense, really what we all hate is when a page slows down your computer because it loads a gazillion of ad scripts and all. Some scripts is ok, if the site works after I enable the first scripts that seem legit to me then I'll save the config and move on with my life.

Thanks to you for sharing your code ! We're lucky to have Shoelace and you ;)

[timw4mail]

I'd gladly take more spartan websites if they load quickly and minimize Javascript.

It's one of the reasons I really like Hacker News.

[1337shadow]

Agreed, but this is also due to the population that hn targets ...

Also, as soon as you want to do something that's a bit more complicated than displaying a textarea and a handful of inputs or selects in a profile page, then JS is going to help a improving UX a lot ...

TBH it feels to me that webcomponent pages load faster than Vue/React/Angular sites, so at least that's an interesting compromise.

[nogridbag]

I agree in theory, but really HN is lacking some features which would make it more enjoyable all which would likely need minimal JS, e.g. sorting, notifications, and some better way to read multi-page discussions. You will likely never read this comment since HN has no notification concept!

[chrismorgan]

Neither sorting nor notifications require any JavaScript whatsoever. As an example, old Reddit has sorting and notifications and handles them all server-side with no JavaScript required. “A better way to read multi-page discussions” is too vague for me to comment on.