In that case, please accept my apologies for the harsh tone!
Best regards,
Marcus
On 20.12.22 17:58, Adrian Musceac wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
>>> The general trend of making web pages heavily dependent on Javascript
>>
>> It's an *optional* script that can be used to select what's visible, if
>> scripting is available. If not available, you get a nicely structured plain
>> text site, as before.
>
> Then please ignore my complaint, I thought this would make Javascript
> mandatory to see the content. Since this is not the case, it is obviously my
> fault for assuming that.
>
>>> and thus unusable for some of us is frankly sad
>>
>> Ok, not my style to be *this* direct, but since you're actively trying to
>> guilt-trip Barry:
>>
>> You're exposed to a website that works perfectly, contrary to your claims,
>> both in obsolete browsers and under disabling JavaScript. It's just
>> *better* with. I honestly don't think you get to lament your "loss" here.
>>
>
> I apologise if it came off like that. It was not my intention to guilt-trip
> anyone. I am simply noticing more and more websites that don't work without
> Javascript or only work with certain browsers and I thought this will be the
> case too. Since I was obviously wrong I have to take your criticism as
> warranted. I am sorry if I have offended you or Barry.
>
> Regards,
> Adrian
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment