Hacker News Reader

Comment by aGHz | Hacker News Reader

The OP missed the point: it's a passive aggressive way to get you off the site and hope you never come back. We're already focusing all our energy on convincing normal people why our app is awesome, convincing you why you should also enable JS to enjoy it is very low on the priority list. Not to mention that I already have to test my site in 4 browsers, you want me to now test it for a very small edge case too? How entitled is that?

View on HN

How was the original author acting entitled? He's merely saying that instead of insulting his intelligence just give him some screenshots and info about your app in the noscript. If your app is worth it he'll flick the js switch to the on position.

The OP missed the point: it's a passive aggressive way to get you off the site and hope you never come back.

Then tell us that. I'm serious, I'd rather get a "fuck off" message than one assuming I'm an idiot.

Nobody is saying you have to support non-Javascript users. The author is saying that if you want to support us, then get it right.

Entitled?

You're the one who stands to profit from the interaction. You do the legwork.

And by the leg work you mean omit instructions on how to enable java-script?

Seems a little silly to me, if you know java-script is disabled then you should just ignore the link.

I mean "a least give the no-JS crowd a reason to let your scripts run". As the submission suggested.

"So that the site will work" is no less insulting to their intelligence, at the end of the day. They know exactly why it isn't working, and if they want to see it work they're welcome to fix it.

But asking for a custom-crafted marketing pitch job aimed at converting a small and pathologically hostile market of noscripters is completely outside the realm of feasibility, here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com