Should a website work without JavaScript?

A recent JS Party podcast sparked a lively debate: Should websites function without JavaScript? The discussion highlighted the complexities of this long-standing "holy war." Here's my take:

The question's very premise deserves scrutiny. Why single out JavaScript? While the debate often centers on JavaScript, it's equally valid to question the necessity of HTML or databases. JavaScript's prominence stems from its role as a major web performance bottleneck and its frequent association with site failures (second only to complete site outages).

The blurred lines between "web apps" and "websites" further complicate the issue. Intuitively, the difference is clear (Facebook versus a blog, for instance). However, precise definitions become elusive, rendering the distinction less meaningful.

Accessibility is a crucial consideration, but it doesn't automatically invalidate JavaScript-dependent sites. While the assumption that assistive technologies don't support JavaScript was once true, that's no longer the case. The relationship between JavaScript and accessibility issues warrants deeper discussion, but JavaScript's presence alone doesn't equate to inaccessibility.

The ease of disabling JavaScript and encountering broken sites fuels the argument for JavaScript-free functionality. The "rule of least power" advocates for designing features to work without JavaScript, ensuring functionality before and after JavaScript execution. While ignoring users who intentionally disable JavaScript is understandable, the focus should be on building resilient websites.

Progressive enhancement, the practice of building functional content without JavaScript and enhancing it with JavaScript, offers a compelling approach. However, its application isn't universally applicable. It can both reduce and increase technical debt, making its value dependent on the specific context. The crucial point is to employ it until the debt becomes excessive.

Progressive enhancement introduces an "in-between" phase where JavaScript is deferred for performance reasons but still needs to load and execute. This period presents a performance and UX cost, ranging from negligible to potentially breaking the feature.

A more productive approach is to analyze the need for JavaScript on a case-by-case, feature-by-feature basis. Considering different application types—a simple brochure site versus a complex social media platform—reveals the varied demands on JavaScript.

Client-side rendering (CSR), where JavaScript handles data fetching and DOM manipulation, will inevitably fail without JavaScript. This contrasts with server-side rendering (SSR), where the HTML is delivered directly from the server, often resulting in faster initial load times. CSR typically offers a smoother user experience after initial loading.

The reality lies beyond a simple SSR vs. CSR dichotomy. Many sites leverage the strengths of both approaches using frameworks like Next.js, Nuxt.js, Gatsby, or Ember's FastBoot.

Finally, remember that service workers and web workers are JavaScript-based. These technologies, while enhancing resilience and performance, are built upon the same technology that fuels the debate.

The above is the detailed content of Should a website work without JavaScript?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!