Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How many users actually disable JS for these (or any other) reasons? Might it be cheaper to e.g. have a call center that trained to use the website on behalf of such users, rather than increasing the development costs of every government site?


Last time we checked we get ~180k visits a month from people who specifically disable JS, ~810k further visits a month from people who don’t have JS available.

So no, it’d be more expensive to have a call centre.


I don't like this idea because it sacrifices ease of use in order to make small savings during the development phase. You shouldn't subject your users to extra grate where possible, and I think this is especially true for a government site.


My suspicion is that maintaining a call centre is more expensive than using progressive enhancement... but it's a fair question.

You're also assuming that starting from a simple HTML implementation is more expensive than other methods. I'm not sure that's the case.

As a rule, in terms of accessing public services at least, I'd be inclined to be very careful to make sure it was as accessible as possible.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: