Efi :cat: is a user on mastodon.social. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse.
Efi :cat: @Efi

dear developers: <noscript> is not just for telling me to enable javascript

· Web · 28 · 33

@Efi i'm not entirely sure how you expect people to make interactive things on the web if not with javascript

@lycaon noscript is an accesibility tool, not a thing only security snobs see
when you provide an interactive interface, you're meant to use noscript to provide an alternative interface for devices that don't run javascript, be it old mobiles, text browsers or aural browsers
the important thing is that saying "you need javascript to see this web" is not an excuse, if your web is made up of mostly text, it should be browsable from a toaster

@Efi @lycaon I'm curious what your thoughts are on when you actually have a web application, or you're using javascript to deliver the text from an alterantive interface with only static assets.

I've been working on reviving a blog that has 0 dynamic presence, and that allows a group of collaboratng authors to create a content stream when they all don't know each other. It can't be done via static content.

@Endo @lycaon you can always return static pages from a script in the server, don't be silly

@Efi @lycaon None of the parties collaborating can be trusted not to alter the other content on static generation.

My goal is to not have a trusted server for executable content integration. The intent is to protect the privacy of a group of collaborating authors while still making their content visible.

@Endo if you're talking about something like google docs, then of course it needs javascript, but if it's like a wiki, then no, it doesn't need it

@Efi Truly distributed applications can't have single trustpoints, all clients have to do the integration of content on their own and it has to be verifiable from all parties, independently. Not sure how to do that safely in a static world.

@Efi I suppose the argument is "build a web gateway that does this for people" like ipfs did, but...

Eh... Kinda defeats the point.

@Endo then your app will never be accessible, so why even bother asking the question?

@Efi I'm curious how I might communicate that in a way that doesn't make people noscripting the web.

As the web becomes a distributed application platform it's going to get more common, but I struggle to explain to people that noscripting is essentially a way to access an older part of web, and there are parts that cannot be accessed without an executable context even if they're just serving content.

@Efi Anything using a blockchain without central storage requires an integration pass.

Another context is that a full execution context for content integration is much more expensive than static hosting. So there is a dimension of economic accessibility. Client-side web apps have an excellent code-delivery story and are less expensive for the hoster.