Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Bent C Dalager Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Article: Why you can't dump Java (even though you want to) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Lines: 26 Message-ID: References: <4fa9c272$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4fac5b32$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: microbel.pvv.ntnu.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: orkan.itea.ntnu.no 1336727388 29343 129.241.210.179 (11 May 2012 09:09:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 09:09:48 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:14479 On 2012-05-11, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 5/8/2012 11:52 PM, markspace wrote: >> On 5/8/2012 6:03 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> >> Sure I often have to enable JS, but only after I've seen the site first. >> If it looks dodgy, I just leave. And often I can still click on a few >> links or read an article without JS. It's rare I'll enable JS if I just >> need one thing from a site. > > That does not sound as 2012 to me. I think it's generally well accepted that using protection may detract from the experience somewhat, but this does not automatically make it a bad idea to do so. :-) Personally, if someone expects me to spend my time on their website they better provide a compelling reason for me to want to do so, and gratuitous dependence on JS just puts me off. In general I consider it a good early indicator of a terrible web designer: "You need JS to click this link", right so this guy taught himself web design in his own dreams. Bent D. -- Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd powered by emacs