>Use Bootstrap to quickly build a website from scratch
>Someone is constantly complaining that the website is broken as fuck
>Spend a few hours trying to fix it, no fucking idea what is going on since the site is fine even in Internet Explorer 8
>They post a screenshot
>They have their NoScript enabled on the site
>tfw every fucking site with one or three pages of simple information uses javascript to render
>tfw there is no reason to use JS, it is not faster, not easier to develop, not easier to maintenance
>tfw big companies (like twitter or facebook) pushing JS forward with the force of cargo train
>>54335913
Site is working perfectly fine without Javascript, seeing as JS is there just for the fancy stuff
The problem was also that they had CSS blocked, which my NoScript doesn't.
I simply use a "stop being an autistic neckbeard" type <no script> overlay with 10vw width, so it is immediately apart to the retard.
>>54335969
>they had CSS blocked
ahahaha
tell them to fuck off. There's no reason to block CSS unless you're running on a 15 year old toaster computer
>>54335975
Are you jealous that you aren't smart enough to make your website work without 2 MB of JavaScript?
>Go to a site
>Some functionality not working
>Have javascript from top-level domains enabled by default
>Ok what else do I have to enable?
>Click on the Noscript icon
>A list containing 30 3rd party javascript sources pops down
>>54336083
>2 MB
More around 200 kb. I'm not a framework lego code monkey. And some people actually write web applications, not generic CRUD sites.
>>54335969
>had CSS blocked
What the actual fuck
Fuck everyone who uses bootstrap.
No I don't want some fuckhuge banner taking up the entire page telling me your companies retarded moto with some stylistic font
I know this isn't bootstraps fault, it's too easy for everyone to be some hipster "designer"
>>54335813
if I have to unblock scripts or requests, your site is indeed broken as fuck
you are the scourge and you should feel bad and remove yourself
>>54336083
if html or css weren't shit people wouldn't use so much javascript
>>54336578
It's ok. You weren't going to contribute anything of value anyway.
>>54335969
>they had CSS blocked
>>54335813
I don't expect full functionality of a website when I use NoScript, but if you can't get the vast majority of it to run without NoScript, then there is no reason to use your site.
>>54336621
There's no reason why anyone would want NoScript tinfoilers to use their site.
>>54336620
http://s.4cdn.org/css/yotsubluemobile.652.css
^that activates even if you aren't on mobile.
That is the only thing I can think of.
>>54336633
That's good, because most NoScript users don't.
>>54336650
I just get a fuck ton of text.
>>54336660
They sure complain a lot about sites not working.
>>54336633
This
I don't even bother to test my sites with noscript enabled
>>54335813
If your website gets broken by Noscript, then it was a shitty site to begin with.
>>54336557
designing the webpage is only half the battle, maybe even less
>>54336697
If your website doesn't work with Netscape, then it was a shitty site to begin with.
>>54336677
I don't. I just don't use them, with rare exception (and even then, only through a VPN).
>>54336697
>site doesn't work under IE4
It's shit
>>54336660
If you are using a web browser on a non mobile device, try resizing your window till it turns to shit.
>>54336715
So my website actually works under Netscape Navigator 9 but it doesn't work with latest Firefox running NoScript
>>54336798
More people use Netscape than NoScript, and the ones who use Netscape are more likely to contribute by doing things such as viewing ads or buying products. It makes no sense to cater to the tinfoil Noscript crowd when they make up a small minority of people and will never do anything positive for a site.
>>54336818
>will never do anything positive
lol
If your site doesn't function with NoScript enabled, then it is broken by design.
Stop subjecting us to your bloated insecure narcissistic jackoff design quirks. Just serve static information like the web was made for
I have zero respect for """"webdevs"""" like you
>>54336881
how shitty is your computer that you can't load a bootstrap page?
>thinking people with actual jobs care if they are respected by NEET weebs
kek
>>54336881
If your browser has NoScript enabled, then it is broken by design. The web isn't just a place to serve static documents anymore. If you want that, then go to a fucking library and check out a book.
How do you think 4chan can function as a web site if all it did was serve static information? How about your bank's site? How about literally anything that requires user interaction? Just kill yourself already. Nobody in the industry gives a fuck what you retarded tinfoilers think.
>>54336902
https://getbootstrap.com/
looks like pure ENTERPRISE bay area garbage used by nu males
nobody with a real job respects people who eek out a living jockeying software like this
>>54336926
4chan and my bank are both terrible places
In a perfect world neither would exist
You don't need scripts to run a discussion board. Moot is just a fucking kike
>>54336946
Then why are you posting here?
>>54336926
Well... I mean you can have all of that without js... It's not pleasant though.
>>54336975
Yes I sure would love to submit a form and refresh the page every time for an update.
>>54336926
>The web isn't just a place to serve static documents anymore.
If you want to use JS to display text and images (which are static content and comprise the vast majority of most sites) then you can fuck right off. I hope your site breaks when someone removes leftpad, idiot
>>54336931
Looks OK to me.
>>54336926
>tinfoilers
>applying that not wanting to deal with 2MBs of battery-draining animated bullshit makes me Alex Jones tier
just admit that you're a mediocre designer/programmer who is essentially using Front Page Express: 21st Century Iteration to make a living
>>54336989
Well I didn't say it would be pleasant.
>>54336989
Most people have literally no problem with this
You just live in a bubble where everybody has his head up his ass and nobody questions the cost of """innovation"""
>>54336991
So you press F5 every time you check for new posts on 4chan?
>>54337026
Oh man those were the days. Lol
>>54336931
cry more
fucking basement devs think they're hot shit, yet have no jobs and can't program anything worth looking at. Get rekt fucking script kiddie. typing nmap into terminal doesn't make you 1337
>>54337026
I press r because I use vi syntax, but yeah
You run some auto-reloading bullshit?
Further proof you live in a bubble
>>54337026
We did that once, remember?
>>54337037
>is employed to write JS
>calls *me* a script kiddie
looooool
>>54337049
We also used to ride in horse drawn carriages.
>>54336926
>How do you think 4chan can function as a web site if all it did was serve static information?
4chan worked fine for years without JS.
>>54336989
>Yes I sure would love to submit a form and refresh the page every time for an update.
No-one is saying everyone should do that. But it should be an option.
Graceful degradation is one of the foundational concepts of good web design. If you fail at it, you fail as a web designer.
>>54337060
In the era before cars we also used to just walk to the store. Guess what, that's still the best way to do things in a lot of situations - when it isn't even possible there's a good chance you've built the infrastructure in a perverse way.
>all these buttroasted webdevs ITT
you have the easiest job in the world and you can't even do that right
>>54337096
So you're actually telling me that pressing F5 is better than having the page automatically check for updates?
>>54337055
>"I code in Haskell like a real man"
>"I only know the basics though"
>"also I'm unemployed"
maybe you should jump off that ivory tower and kill yourself my man
>>54337102
uhhhh yes
Let the user decide what they want to see when they want to see it ffs
what schools are you retards coming out of
>>54337102
>So you're actually telling me that pressing F5 is better than having the page automatically check for updates?
Sometimes it is.
Sometimes it isn't.
>>54337113
Most users will prefer the second option, and it is the default in every browser. Why should developers waste their resources catering to a vocal minority?
>>54337102
I like coming back to threads and seeing exactly where I left off. I either press F5 or the "update" button
http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
>>54337049
I remember that image fondly.
>>54337113
>Let the user decide what they want
If you want the user decide what they want, just slap there an auto-update toggle.
>>54337124
>Why should developers waste their resources catering to a vocal minority?
Because making few assumptions about the user is one of the core goals of web design.
If you're writing websites for you and people just like you, then you're not actually a web designer at all - you're a blogger.
>>54337124
No they don't
"most users" is all the other twentysomething receding hairline Snowden looking-ass niggas at your bullshit standing desk circlejerk startup
you dont interact with "most users," only people who are high on their own fumes just like you
>>54336818
Why do you have such a problem with people using noscript?
>>54337144
If I'm writing websites for money, I will spend resources on improving the experience for the 99.9% of people who browse the web with Javascript enabled.
>>54337150
You are the one who is high on your own fume if you seriously think a significant portion of the population browse the web with Javaacript disabled.
>>54337183
I don't have a problem with them. I am just explaining why it is silly for someone who uses NoScript to complain about sites not working for them.
>>54337187
most people dont even know what javascript is
but they do say things like "son, my internet is being slow again! fix it!" because of lazy excuses for designers like you
>>54337183
He doesn't want people to start blocking JS and killing the 10MB of ad and tracking scripts he loads
>going out of your way to make a website work for the NEET virgins who use noscript
kek, im sure the rest of the population will be absolutely fine
>>54335813
use the javascript-less version of boostrap.
also put up a disclaimer panel that tells the user they need js enabled if you build a site with angular or react.
be sure to make it so they only have to unblock the selfhosted scripts for it to work.
dont be a dick and bundle google analytics into your scripts or other stuff.
>>54335969
>CSS blocked
This shouldn't completely prevent the site from functioning.
I think it's amazing how the bloat of sites rises in proportion with internet speeds, ensuring that we'll never actually have a snappy, fast web experience
all because of some lazy, narcissistic framework jockeys refuse to consider anybody who is not in standing front of a brand new 27" iMac in a gentrified quarter of San Francisco
>>54337208
bingo
these people generate no real value, so this is how they make a living
>>54337228
accessing his site via localhost
>>54337228
Because anything Javascript=bloat, even if it saves resources on both the client and server end from not having to issue full page reloads over and over and over again for simple updates.
>>54337187
My javascript is disabled, and when I turn off my agent spoofer, one in ~370 users has the same settings as me, according to panopticlick.
I challenge you to find a less unique browser.
>>54337217
They probably broke it themselves.
>>54336650
>>54336776
>>54337248
let's be honest:
everything *you* do with it is bloat
>>54337249
1 in ~370 isn't very unique. It is rather generic.
>>54337259
I use Javascript precisely for what it is intended for, providing dynamic updates from user interaction without having to reload the entire page. You must have your tinfoil on really tight it you think that everything that uses Javascript is out to get you.
I'm willing to bet most of these noscript spergs are on an ancient pentium m thinkpad that can't handle modern websites.
I used to use a T41 for regular use and I couldn't open more than 4 tabs of anything without grinding the computer to a halt.
Maybe you people should buy a computer made this millennium.
>>54337261
That is the entire point. One in ~370 people browsing the internet have Javascript turned off, and are using firefox 46.0 on Linux Mint.
Fucking JonDoFox doesn't get results that common.
>>54336557
But anon I'm using the BOOTSTRA.386 CSS
>>54337217
I did not say that it completely broke. They were complaining that the site is broken due of the CSS not loading, which was blocked by NoScript
>>54336578
>>54336621
>>54336697
>>54336881
But the site fully works without Javascript and running NoScript with default settings. He just had CSS blocking on which resulted in a "broken" page because it did not load CSS
Literally the only thing that doesn't work is the custom font because it's loaded from external source
>>54337294
Complete bullshit. One in ~370 people definitely don't even have Linux Mint installed.
>>54337290
the fact that hardware specs even factor into the equation of using motherfucking http showcases just how far up your own ass you are
I have a macbook pro that runs just fine
I just have to wait forever for your bullshit to load
It's especially odious on a mobile device where you are wasting our battery for no fucking purpose
>>54337314
this thread isn't about you anymore nerd
bootstrap is good shit, don't listen to the programming illiterate manchildren anon :3
>>54337318
I was as surprised as you are when I first saw my results.
Dunno what to tell you. Although I wasn't spoofing anything, the spoofer was still limiting my detectable fonts.
>>54337314
NoScript doesn't have an option to block CSS. Why would NoScript enable CSS blocking in the first place; It is completely harmless.
Is that the ``le ebin troll''?
>>54337342
>you
>a programmer
good one
>>54337349
Some spoofers have it enabled by default. Random Agent Spoofer does.
>>54337325
Refreshing and rendering a page over and over again instead of using AJAX is what really wastes battery, and much worse, mobile bandwidth.
>>54337349
I don't know, I primary use Chrome and don't use NoScript
Basically the CSS wasn't working when he had NoScript on and the CSS loaded when NoScript was off, so it had to be NoScript causing that
Who the fucking cares about autistic neckbeards who have JS disabled anymore?
>>54337354
*shrugs* you don't get much affected by labels or being "a real X" when you got more going on in your life, you should try it sometime
>>54337187
>You are the one who is high on your own fume if you seriously think a significant portion of the population browse the web with Javaacript disabled.
Except that 1 out of 5.54 people don't use Javascript.
>>54337375
Then your CSS is loaded through JS, because NoScript doesn't work that way. CSS shouldn't work that way, either, but this is /g/.
>>54337425
1 out of 5.54 people who visit panopticlick to test their browser fingerprint.
>>54337439
Do you have anything to counter those numbers, or just your own "expert knowledge?"
If you're gonna refute it, then refute it.
>>54337451
https://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/many-users-javascript-disabled-14121.html
Literally on the first page of search results for "percentage javascript disabled".
>>54337468
The site that said, and I quote:
>Well-designed web sites and applications always keep in mind the people who have JavaScript disabled. The whole concept of progressive enhancement is built around the idea that the content of the page should be accessible without JavaScript (or CSS), even if more advanced functionality is available.
And stated that 2% of US web users make up 6 million people?
Or how about:
http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/lim/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled-5906
Where it is ball parked at 5-10% (up to 30 million in the US alone)?
So, 2-10% of your users aren't using JavaScript. That's not nothing. Even the site that gives the lowest estimation explicitly states that you should be planning around them if you're a good web developer.
>>54337514
>2005
The web has changed significantly since then and Javascript has become much more prevalent since then. Yahoo is a large company, and has the user base and the manpower to justify making a Javascript free version of their site, but many others will have to make the tradeoff on whether to accommodate for people without Javascript, or make the experience better for those with Javascript.
>>54337565
And yours was October of 2010. What of it?
>many others will have to make the tradeoff on whether to accommodate for people without Javascript.
Don't you mean:
>Will have to make the choice on whether to design their web site well, or to design their web site easily?
>>54335813
>relying on offsite scripts for your website
If your website doesn't load fine with Javascript disabled then it is broken.
>>54337593
Yes, Javascript use has definitely increased since 2010, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 2% figure is even lower now.
You seem to think that you cannot develop a site well with Javascript. Javascript, and external libraries like jQuery and Bootstrap, definitely make designing a site easier and make the site more functional if used properly. The only disadvantage is that it will not work for visitors without Javascript.
Imagine you are the developer for a small news site. 98% of people who will visit your site will have Javascript enabled. The other 2% will not, and will not view your ads, share on social media, comment on the articles, or do anything else that promotes growth. Why should you care about them?
>>54337609
If your browser does not have Javascript enabled then it is broken.
>>54337131
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
>>54337659
>You seem to think that you cannot develop a site well with Javascript.
Not at all. My assertion is that if you can't run the website without Javascript or CSS enabled, then you haven't developed the site well. You can certainly have a site uses Javascript or CSS that are built well, and can function without them.
>>54337699
Site is fully functional without Javascript or CSS enabled. Not sure how your site proves anything.
>>54337026
I-I do, how you guys do it?
>>54337712
Please tell me how you can develop a site like Google Docs, Facebook, Spotify, etc, without Javascript. This mentality would be OK in an era when all people used the web for was to load static documents and articles, but people do much more in their browsers these days.
>>54336621
what if my sites target demographic is normies and not basementdwelling autists who cannot deal with the social situation of inefficient bits of data being squandered at an imperceptible rate?
>>54337712
how much money did you make this month on webdev? thats my metric and im totally killing it with bootstrap spending 99% of my time on SEO while you are wishing your columns and rows lined up straight in 2 different browsers.
>>54337659
Accessibility. You have essentially told people with screen readers that you don't give a fuck about them. You care more about people using IE6. Which says a lot about you.
>>54337876
>imperceptible
normies are likely to be browsing on a smartphone with a slow processor and a tight data cap. You should be more concerned about efficiency and avoiding active content when designing for normies, not less.
>>54337898
Because constant hard refreshes instead of lightweight ajax requests are so much better for data limits and energy usage right?
>>54337898
now you are just hinting at nonexistent problems at least before it was technically true however imperceptible to a human experience
>>54337898</thread>
>>54337914
you're assuming you need to refresh the page all the damn time. Why? So they can check if the comments on your clickbait have been updated in the past 60 seconds?
>>54337938
Are you retarded? That's what normies do all day. They constantly check their social media.
>>54337950
so you design social media sites?
>>54337964
4chan has auto refreshing. Sports sites have auto refreshing. News sites have auto refreshing. Email and chat auto refresh. This isn't 1995 anymore. People do more on the internet than download text and images.
>>54337990
So put a button in a noscript tag that refreshes the site. There, sorted, it degrades gracefully, and it cost you, what, ten minutes?
Oh, right, I forgot the real reason..
>"But if they don't have JS, how will they load my three-megabyte marketing analytics script?!"
>>54338014
People don't want to waste their bandwidth sending the same page, with maybe 2 lines changed, over and over again to tinfoilers.
>>54338034
If it didn't change then return a 304 not modified you fucking pajeet
that and caching take care of the images, the rest is just sending some new text
and you're sending more text than that by using JS anyway
>>54337290
Normies are more likely to use a weak pc.
A ton of them use shitty laptops with an Atom or low-power AMD, or a shitty phone/tablet
>>54338072
Things change very often you fucking retard. Every time you refreshed this thread and there was a new post, at least 5 times judging from your replies, your browser downloaded a 100KB HTML file that was maybe 1% different than the one it had previously.
webdevs not even once
>>54338107
That's why delta encoding for HTTP was proposed 14 fucking years ago.
But server and browser devs are too busy optimizing for shitty sites, filled with MBs of JavaScript, to implement it.
>>54338034
>>54338034
Is the total amount of data for re-sending a text file to a smallish % really that much of an issue?
Even if the page is100KB text and refreshes once a minute, and 5% of your 20K simultaneous users aren't using JS, that's an extra ~250KB/s after compression.
That's fucking nothing.
>>54337990
nope
hate to break it to you but all of those cases are still just downloading text and images, and with the exception of interactive programs like a chat, none of those need to auto-refresh
>>54338178
There's a reason why it's considered a joke profession
>>54336926
>If you want that, then go to a fucking library and check out a book.
ice-burn.jpg
>>54337349
>harmless
Thirdparty tracking.
>>54336084
most of the time you only need to activate one or two for full functionality something that ends with cdn or some famous 3rd party that skiddie who made the site uses (eg bootstrap or google apis most of the time)
>JSON is sleek as fuck but requires local parsers to render
>XSLT is bloated clusterfuck abandonware but integrates nicely
This is why we can't have nice things.
>>54337990
>4chan has auto refreshing
Its not forced on you
t: javascript user
>open news site my friend linked me to
>"newssite.com wants to use your location"
>tap "no" since I don't need localized weather info
>browser freezes because it has to load god knows how many thousand lines of javascript
>wait 5 seconds
>finally browser unfreezes
>"This site uses cookies"-banner takes 20% of my screen
>scroll down to the news story
>suddenly see an ad banner that took more time to load and only showed up after the rest of the site had loaded
>scroll down to the news story again
>browser crashes
Why are mobile sites so horrible? Its like 4chan is the only mobile site that actually works right.
>>54340650
Mobile is an afterthought that's plagued with developers who don't use the site or know what a fucking profiler is
>>54337055
sorry but >>54337105 is right
have fun being a NEET
>go to website with javascript disabled
>blank page
There's no fucking excuse for this. Stop making shitty meme 3.0 mobile faggotry.
>>54335969
>CSS blocked
Tell them to show a screenshot of a *not* broken site for reference
>>54337105
>"I code in Haskell like a real man"
>"I'm unemployed"
found the problem
