I feel that my time is better spent developing for the majority.
Software Engineering Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professionals, academics, and students working within the systems development life cycle. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
There's a web-design philosophy known as Progressive Enhancement which is one you should consider. The idea is you build a basic site that is usable and workable, and then you layer onto this enhancements like jQuery and browser-specific stuff to "enhance" it. This way you get a site that works for everybody and looks nice for the majority.
It is more SEO friendly. If your site relies on JS for content and links then chances are search-engines will be ignoring large chunks of it.
Yes, you should.
If you perceive this as something that requires extra effort, you may be doing it the other way around.
And please, don't develop the pages where:
It's just against the spirit of the web and against the common sense.
P.S. Spoken by a user of the NoScript.
Personally I use the NoScripts Firefox plugin when browsing, and I encourage others to use it to. On all the family PCs I maintain NoScripts is one of the mandatory bits of software I install. I set it up with a whitelist of the basic email and banking websites along with the popular social & video sites and explain to them how the temporary allow works. Judging from the popularity of this plugin I think there is a pretty good portion of people who use it.
At the very least I expect navigation functionality to work without scripts. If you have something specific like video that requires scripts then fine, but display a nice placeholder that says "scripts are required to view this video".
Making your navigation rely on scripts is a big mistake though. In many cases it will make me bounce off the site in disgust. An even bigger mistake is to have part of your site or navigation just completely disappear when scripts are disabled. Unless you highlight the fact that something is missing there's a good chance I won't even notice so will just leave your site thinking it wasn't there. Also, a full screen message that just says "this site requires scripts" won't get you very far, I need to see some level of content before I trust you enough to allows scripts.
It depends on the site and who will be using it.
<noscript> tag) that you are doing so.
Can I recommend an article from "A List Apart"?:
(And that's just the short list)
When the solution isn't that hard, why not do it?
Reworking for non-JS users? Normally: No.
It tends to slow everything down - despite being close to a major city, my broadband is slow enough without having to wait for some marketing idea to load. If a site takes more than 5 seconds to load basic content then I won't bother unless I have a real need.
Only on mission critical functionality
Things to consider:
I'm not going to talk about people with NoScript, embedded devices, etc. Their share can be measured and then you can decide if revenue decrease caused by annoying e.g. 0.5% users worths implementing a solution for them.
But there are other reasons to follow Progressive Enhancement principle, and they are often more important.
It is actually quite easy to follow Progressive Enhancement principle so why don't follow it?
Depends on the answer to a single question:
If the missing 5% of users would have spent more than £10,000 - do it. If they wouldn't, don't do it unless you're legally required to.
This is more of a business/economical decision than a technical one.
No, you shouldn't
With two exceptions: