Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

disfalo wrote

You cannot track people easily using static sites.

I think it's kind of a microcosm of our society's unhealthy relationship with technology in which we view increasing technological complexity as good in itself rather than viewing technologies as tools and selecting those that best fit our needs. We fetishize technological "progress" and thus assume that, since we can use javascript, we should even when it doesn't make any sense. And we do that with a lot of other technologies too (see: all of modern society).

Things are getting more complex and interdependent.

Personally, I surf the web with JavaScript disabled. When I code a website I write it to be compatible with LibreJS and always offer the same functionality using a <noscript> tag anyway. I almost always see a lack of care for disabled people as well; JavaScript makes things way more complicated for them, and bad web developers (most of them) don't bother to make websites accessible.


emma wrote

JavaScript doesn't hinder accessibility, the website owner does. Modern screen readers interface with your browser to access the DOM tree (meaning web pages with scripts work just fine), and ARIA makes even complex web applications accessible. I'd say the average web page is probably more accessible than your average desktop application, but I don't use screen readers in my daily life so don't quote me on that.


OldHippieChick wrote

I don't use screenreaders either.

I hate to self-identify as legally blind. I'm not. I can't access reading glasses or bifocals and I prefer not to be illiterate and in pain all the time.

I am capitalistically blind or sociologically blind but the definition of "legally blind" is somebody who cannot, with any amount of money or social privilege, access artifical augmentation products in order to see as well as i see.

I can turn on Orca Screen Reader any time I choose to.


disfalo wrote

JavaScript doesn't hinder accessibility, the website owner does.

You're right. But I've almost never seen an average website which uses JavaScript caring about the WAI-ARIA recommendation. Interactive elements should have the appropriate aria attributes, but most of the time they don't. With static sites, even if you don't care about the WAI-ARAI, it will be easier for disabled people to understand and they don't have to wonder if something is collapsed or not.


heckthepolice OP wrote (edited )

That's a really good point about Javascript making things more difficult for disable people. Our society's entire discourse surrounding technology always comes from a really privileged position where we pretty much assume that everyone can afford multiple internet-enabled devices (computer, smartphone, and often others), has reliable internet access in the first place, and is able-bodied and neurotypical, and I myself am guilty of that (I think it's telling that I hadn't even considered the ableist implications of ubiquitous javascript until you mentioned it), and so our technology tends to be really bad at accessibility.

edit: u/emma pointed out that screenreaders actually can handle JavaScript quite well, so it's not necessarily bad for accessibility. They know a lot more about screenreaders and web design than I do, so I'm gonna trust them on this one

You cannot track people easily using static sites.

Yeah, I think you solved it. Though I do still think there's something to the "having javascript is now just assumed" aspect of it as well, since even websites that aren't run by corporations trying to spy on us often include unnecessary javascript.


Volt wrote (edited )

You cannot track people easily using static sites.

But you can. DoubleClick was able to do this before Web 2.0 happened with tracking pixels. Where there's a will there's a way.

My point here is – blame capitalism.


2145 wrote

You can to some degree, but Javascript allows you to tell how long someone stays on a page, how far they scroll, and all kinds of other invasive details.