Hacker News Reader

Comment by zahlman | Hacker News Reader

> You’ve probably done something like mow a lawn or vacuum a rug hundreds of times without thinking much about it. Some part of your brain works out a route that’s usually good enough to get the job done. People are actually pretty good at this, and better than you’d guess for a problem that is hard for computers. We wanted to see it for ourselves, so we built a lawn and asked people to mow it.

Is there supposed to be more content than this?

... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

View on HN

> ... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

By "asked people to mow it" they're talking about the visitors to the site. It's interactive.

It's somewhat a mistake not to have "skip to results" in the actual html. On the other hand, it makes sense they want to force people to see the landing page first. And unless they want to add a whole rendered fallback the results page isn't going to be super functional without javascript.

Without JavaScript, there is literally no page text beyond that point until the footer. Thee is no indication that there would be any interactive content. There is also no discussion of what the interactive content demonstrates after it. There are no "results" to which a "skip to results" could skip.

Yeah I know. But "literally no page text" is only missing a couple words. The correct version is super short.

The noscript version needs a button and a big box with an X. And even then the button would only be half-functional so I understand skipping it. It mostly just needs a "missing content" warning.

I don't follow. The title says "why some people mow a lawn better than others". Presumably, through getting people to play some interactive demo, they got some insight into the answer to that. Why can't they just use text to communicate that insight to me, instead of expecting me to go through the same demo? Why is there not any text after the demo describing the lesson learned? Or before, for that matter?

There is text after it. But you have to click the button to get there. The button is the main broken part without javascript. But like I said "the button would only be half-functional so I understand skipping it".

No, there is not "text after it". There is also no button.

https://files.catbox.moe/8nxbo5.png

The logos at the bottom are images from the page footer.

> No, there is not "text after it".

Read the next sentence. You have to click the button to get there.

> There is also no button.

I keep saying the button is broken and I says it needs to show up on noscript. How can I be clearer?

> How can I be clearer?

You can try understanding that it is not acceptable for the page to look like this with JavaScript disabled. There is no good reason why the "next sentence" can't just appear on the page, using the same technology (HTML) that the opening paragraph uses.

We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it

It is not "pride". It is a constant annoyance that web site authors feel entitled to run their code on my machine, for purposes where it's egregiously unnecessary.

> egregiously unnecessary

So are you going to admit your initial reaction was wrong here? Despite how this page could be improved (a warning and a partial conclusions view with javascript off), the core purpose of the javascript is to let you play the game and watch replays, something that is very basic automation and impractical to do without code.

It is egregiously unnecessary to expect me to play the game in order to present the finding. Or even discuss the finding.

I will not admit my reaction was wrong, because it was not wrong. If a submission is titled "Why some people mow a lawn better than others", it is completely reasonable to expect a JavaScript-disabled version of the page to display text which describes why some people mow a lawn better than others.

I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed.

You are allowed to skip the game.

But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary. The javascript, while flawed, is there for a valid reason.

> I did not click the submission title to watch replays, or even simple media animations. I clicked it expecting a theory of lawn-mowing to be conveyed.

They use the replays to convey it. Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things.

> You are allowed to skip the game.

No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content.

> But offering it is not egregiously unnecessary.

It hasn't been offered to me.

What is egregiously unnecessary is the requirement to enable JavaScript in order to read plain text explaining the conclusion. Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort.

> Insisting on pure text is another layer of unreasonable insistence on how to do things.

No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement

> No, I'm not. If I don't have JavaScript enabled, then I don't see the post-game content.

I meant the reader in general.

> It hasn't been offered to me.

The game has been offered to you. You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing. The problem is not having a fallback that warns you.

Which simplifies to: The site uses javascript for a valid reason. It's valid even though you don't want it.

> Because when one has actual conclusions, presenting them in plain text is trivial; doing it any other way is what requires additional effort.

> No, it is not. It is the most basic and fundamental principle of how the WWW works.

Do you get this mad at videos? Some things are fundamentally not text.

Progressive enhancement is a general purpose strategy, not a requirement for every situation.

> The game has been offered to you.

Again, this is the text that is shown to me:

What part of this mentions that the lawn they "built" is actually a simulation in a game? What part mentions that they would now like me to play it? What part says anything whatsoever about what they learned from having people play the game?

> You are actively refusing the offer. Using javascript to make that offer is not a bad thing.

No. Not having JavaScript is the default. It is expected that people can make the offer in a way that doesn't require JavaScript, because the point of making the offer is to justify the existence of the JavaScript.

> a valid reason.

It is not possible that there is "a valid reason" to use JavaScript to make an offer to use JavaScript. That is pure chicken and egg.

The way you make the offer is to use text to convey what the purpose of the JavaScript is.

> Do you get this mad at videos?

If it's configured to autoplay, and consists of someone droning over irrelevant imagery saying something that would have been better presented as plain text? Hell yes. Why wouldn't I?

> What part of this

The fact that you can't see the offer without javascript is a flaw. But the offer is there. And everyone else told you about it so you know, and have known for days.

> Not having JavaScript is the default.

Ojectively not true.

> the point of making the offer is to justify the existence of the JavaScript

That's a contorted way to phrase it that isn't right. The justification is the game and replays, whether or not you actually see the offer.

> It is not possible that there is "a valid reason" to use JavaScript to make an offer to use JavaScript. That is pure chicken and egg.

Ah, that's why you contorted it that way. Good news, the chicken and egg justification is not what's happening.

> If it's configured to autoplay, and consists of someone droning over irrelevant imagery saying something that would have been better presented as plain text? Hell yes. Why wouldn't I?

No, not those details you came up with. No autoplay. The imagery in the video is central to how they explain it. If someone did a text version it would be fundamentally a different explanation.

Would you object just as hard, or accept it being a video?

This mower thing would also lose something significant as pure text.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com