Arbitrary abbreviations in phobos considered ridiculous

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 12:22:00 UTC, Ary Manzana wrote:
> But if people didn't have an option to disable JS, we wouldn't 
> have this discussion. I think it as having an option to disable 
> CSS.

You can disable css :P

Keeping your site working without css is a lot harder IMO
than doing the same without javascript. I often assume
display: none; will work to hide unnecessary things.

Sometimes, doing simple things with css is a bit hard too.

For example, one easy way to make a site still work without
css is to put your content at the top of the HTML page,
with  as few as possible distractions in the process.

Oh yeah, and of course, always use the proper semantic
tags, which you should do anyway. Descriptive tags
help css too!

Anyway, so, you put the navigation menus, etc., at the
bottom of the html file.


Here's the problem though: you want those menus to show
up at the top for people with css. And that is incredibly
hard to get right currently. (I think css3 will make it
easier, but IE10 is the only browser to properly support
the needed features last I checked, and IE10 has 0% market.)


But with css2, you can't float to the top.... you can't
display: table to the top.

The best you can do is position: absolute, which can get
you trapped in the document tree and is just generally
a pain in the butt - you have to break the natural flow.


I often just say gah to it and either minimize those
things so it isn't too big of a hassle anyway, or put
a display: none #content link at the top.

(The only people who go without css in my experience are
lynx users anyway, so making it easier to scroll past the
crap is the important thing.)




Now, here's one case I never think about: what about if
JS is enabled, and CSS is not? Now that would be weird.

Probably usable but just really weird.