How current is support for browsers without Javascript support

Question

JavaScript

I look at site statistics, in particular, the share of browsers with javascript support. At the moment, everywhere the figure fluctuates around 99.9%. This begs the question, how relevant is it at the moment to spend energy on implementing duplicate functionality for browsers without js, if the share of those is an order of magnitude less than even the share of IE6?

Of course, I'm not talking now about services with a million attendance, where any tenth share is already tens of thousands of people. The question relates rather to average projects, where the attendance is 0-5000 people. Having wandered around the RuNet in disabled js mode, I met somewhere 50 to 50 sites that support disabled js and do not.

Answer 1

People who disable js know what they are getting into, this is their conscious choice, I would not worry about them. The question here is different - in reliability and speed.
1. In the first moments, no one has js. After all, JavaScript is loaded at the end of the page so that the content is available earlier, and until the files are loaded, js does not work for the user. Therefore, a site that works without js will be available to the user earlier. And if the connection is slow, or some kind of network error, then a site that does not work without js will not work for the user at all. The alternative is to put js at the top though how would that help. Sites that support people without js allow you to get the content of the page earlier => work faster.
2. An error in the js file can lead to the fact that the site becomes unavailable. This remark seems rather obvious, but it is often given unjustifiably little importance. If js is compressed into 1 file so that it loads faster, then if there is an error in one of the scripts, the rest of the js will not be executed either.
Problems with the network, some js-file did not load - the site does not work.
Forgot the comma - site doesn't work for all IE users.
Forgot the debug console.log - the site does not work if the debugging tools are not installed and enabled (Firefox, Safari, Internet Explorer).
Well, etc. Third-party js from advertisers that cannot be controlled can break the site.
You can, of course, say that you need to write code without errors. But there is no such code. The problem here is in the architecture, the web does not work that way. Recently, for example, Lifehacker and Gizmodo were completely inaccessible for a long time precisely because of a bug in js. You can read more here: isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/BreakingTheWebWithHashBangs
In most cases, providing an alternative without js is not at all difficult because we just write unobtrusive js. If this is important to someone, then it is easier to write tests for such pages.

Answer 2

Here, it seems to me, the issue is not even in browsers that do not support js, but in users who, for one reason or another, disable it.
Those. you need to consider the question “who disconnected”, “why” and “are these users important enough for me to take the time to adapt to them”.

Answer 3

In my opinion, the vast majority of browsers without JavaScript in the statistics are browsers that support JavaScript, but disable it through various NoScript. For them, IMHO, it is enough to display a warning that the full functionality is available only with JavaScript enabled, and not to duplicate the dynamic client functionality on the server side.
But when there is no such warning, it is very infuriating for the visitor to understand that what he sees in the browser window is not at all what the developer wants to show him.

Answer 4

My opinion is that basic functionality should be provided without running JS. Voting pens, etc. can be skipped. The main thing is that when a person logs in without JS, the site does not crash, but continues to work and gives out something intelligible (and even better, does not show that it does not work without JS).

Answer 5

Don't enable JS on twitter. I'm not interested in the browser blocking my right mouse button so that the middle one works like the left one and so that I can't open what I need in a separate tab. Who are they to prevent me from using the Internet the way I used to?
That's right, lyrics. But still, the site should work well without JS. Well, at least if the site, for example, contains texts on a certain topic, anyone should easily read them. Here are some bookmarks-reposts-comments that can be considered secondary enough functionality to score on their support.

Answer 6

I am personally against sites that hang a huge banner that turn on JS or you won’t see anything. The
basic functionality should be available without JS, i.e. read the material because of which you came to the site; optionally, you can show a sign that some of the features will not be available (although many who install NoScript already understand this)

Answer 7

1) count the number of users without js
2) count the average revenue per user and multiply it by the result of point 1.
3) count the number of man-hours needed to develop the no-js version of the site
4) count the cost of these man-hours
5) compare the result of paragraph 4 with the result of paragraph 2. if in paragraph 2 the number is greater or they are approximately equal, then make a version without js. if in paragraph 2 the number is less than in paragraph 4, then do not.

Answer 8

Meaning is something else. If the whole site is tied to js, ​​it will not be properly indexed by search engines. Search engines follow links, and if they are only on ajax, then the search engine will not reach them. Accordingly, if search traffic is not important to you, then you can not bother.

Answer 9

I was guided by the facebook site when I made such a decision. There, if you turn off js, nothing works, the message “turn on js” appears. It's the same with cookies. If you turn them off, it says "enable cookies." The popularity of this site is known to everyone, they did not bother.
And for mobile devices, you need to make a separate, lightweight template.

Answer 10

As a hamster-user with both hands for sites without js, put reactive diilo instead of brake fox, and go ahead with the song :-)

Answer 11

Having wandered around the RuNet in disabled js mode, I met somewhere 50/50 sites that support disabled js and do not.

Well, here's the answer for you :)
In fact, there were quite a few bourgeois sites that simply refused to work without js support. So, fortunately or unfortunately, the technology is too deeply rooted to be ignored.

Answer 12

Depending on what kind of site, you have to go to some of the bare consoles, there it is, yes, critical. And so, to show something like “as a client we are not interested in you” and okay, who really needs it will come in one way or another.

Answer 13

The answer to the question about Facebook is a security issue. To work with cookies, you need javascript, in fact, everyone knows. If javascript is disabled and the site decides to maintain a client session between page requests, there is nothing left to do but stick some id that is attached to the user in each url. Everything seems to be fine, but what if the user wants to share a link on the forum, and this link will contain his id?
I would prefer it (javascript) to be enabled for everyone.