[jimktrains2]

Seriously? This is essentially a static HTML page, why is it completely useless unless JavaScript is enabled?

EDIT: Useless meaning there is 0 content that can be seen. It's not that it's ugly w/o JS, there is nadda, zilch, nothing without it.

[y0ghur7_xxx]

Because who made it decided he liked to do it with js instead of serving static html. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not an api, it's designed to be consumed by browsers. And browsers have js enabled by default and make it very difficult to disable it. It's a problem only for you because you willingly decided to browse in crippled mode.

[jimktrains2]

> And browsers have js enabled by default

Not all of them. It's just disturbing that people move so far away from the basics for such simple tasks as static HTML. What about those with disabilities and use screen readers or braille displays? I guess the author doesn't care about the blind or those who choose not to execute arbitrary code on their computers.

[y0ghur7_xxx]

> What about those with disabilities and use screen readers or braille displays?

Screen readers work just fine with js generated content¹². I don't know about braille displays, but I guess they work the same.

¹http://stackoverflow.com/a/18861097

²http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2011/javascript-and-screenreade...

[dkersten]

Since Elm is a system for creating interactive, visual things that run on javascript... the author probably doesn't care about the blind or those who choose not to execute arbitrary code in this case. Why would he? They wouldn't be able to use Elm anyway.

[koide]

Why did you mention the blind? Some can certainly create visual things [1] and run Javascript.

Having a limitation sucks at least two times, the first when you find you can't do something and the second time, after learning to do that thing, when people assumes you can't even try.

[1]: http://www.armagan.com/

[dkersten]

I simply quoted what GP said. (S)he stated that the author doesn't care about the blind, my argument is that the author doesn't have to.

But you're right - I shouldn't have said that as I what I really meant is that the author decided that the blog post working the way it works is fine for people who can run Elm and therefore one shouldn't really expect that he'd cater to others.

While I'm pretty far from blind, I don't have all that great eyesight myself, so I can (at least the smallest little tiny bit) relate. I should have said what I said in the previous paragraph instead of what I said in my previous comment and I apologise. Thanks for calling me out on it.

[jimktrains2]

Fair enough. It's just sad to see technology create barriers between people.

[wheatBread]

Elm normally generates <noscript> tags that are pretty good. It has come in and out of the compiler for various reasons, so it should be back in again at some point. Sorry for the trouble!