Comment Re:Turn off javascript... (Score 1) 250
In a case where the JS is:
- harder to implement
- 100% redundant to what CSS can do
- does not involve getting a framework in place where modifications and additions become easier down the road
- the percentage of users who know what a JS vulnerability is matter
I didn't include accessibility above. Even WebTV supports JS. Its inclusion doesn't commit any sins that images didn't already.
I'm not interested in continually moving the goalposts in order to back up the flawed "JS is automatically bad" meme. JS *can* be bad but I honestly think we're past the point where there is much to gain by taking even the slightest pain in order to use it sparingly.
I didn't misunderstand the GP, but I did miss the part where "JS should only be used where truly needed" follows logically from "JS is an important technology, which 95% of users have support for."
The technology is powerful and pervasive and mollifying your average
In short: it's reached the saturation level where those without it can safely be ignored. An extra 100k of libraries can be ignored too. I think that if it presents even a slight advantage to a designer in terms of development time then they should use it. Their client and the 95% of people viewing the page with JS on will appreciate the quicker turnaround.