Hacker News Reader

Comment by asdasf | Hacker News Reader

>As JavaScript is basically a required feature on the web these days, who cares?

People who don't live in a fantasy bubble world where that is true? "Hey, just throw away 1% of your potential user base for no reason" isn't a very compelling sales pitch.

View on HN

I'd be very, very surprised if the number of people with JavaScript disabled is as high as 1%.

The number of people who have JavaScript disabled and don't know how and when to re-enable it is so small as to be irrelevant.

It's generally less than 0.5% and the few techies that do it via NoScript are well aware of what to do when things break. And you'll spend far more than 0.5% of your time and budget working to make a JS-less fallback version of all your work.

It's like supporting IE6 at this point. It's a tradeoff. And for the vast majority of us, it's a near-complete waste of resources to cater to them.

Depends... if it takes 20% of your time to make your site work for 1% of your potential users who have a feature disabled, I say forget it.

The caveat to this rule is, of course, if you have a site that is very heavily trafficked.

That's an arbitrary and useless guideline, using made up numbers. If losing 1% of your potential users costs $100k in lost sales a year, and 20% of my time costs $20k, then spending that 20% time seems like a pretty good idea.

See listed caveat. If 1% of your users are netting you 100k, your site is likely heavily trafficked.

Real teams are doing that all the time, you have to prioritize bugs, they rather fix important stuff and not care for people using IE6-8 and people using linx.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com