Quite a lot of websites don't have clients that pay for design - in many cases (especially SaaS), the person wholy responsible for the look&feel target is your colleague the designer, sitting in the office next to yours.
Come to think of it, given how most websites are designed, I'm starting to think we're making a mistake with sticking to HTML/CSS/JS. We should move to "executable Photoshop image" format - so that the beautiful magazine-like layouts made by designers could be implemented without a shit ton of hackery and bloat webdevs have to put nowadays. We could also push some security and sanity decisions into the format this way, so that the tool itself would tell the designers they can't (or shouldn't) do something.
> Quite a lot of websites don't have clients that pay for design - in many cases (especially SaaS), the person wholy responsible for the look&feel target is your colleague the designer, sitting in the office next to yours.
Call them boss, call them stakeholder, call them prospects, call them whatever you want, point is, progressive enhancement requires actual hard work, it's not the default state of things when you move beyond the "research paper" format of having a bunch of paragraphs of text interspersed with section titles on a completely static page.
I still disagree - I made websites back in the ancient days when people used to generate HTML server-side. Things worked perfectly well. Current proliferation of heavy JS frameworks buys us nothing over those times, but wastes more electricity and time of our users.
PE is not what the client pays you for.
> You have to go out of your way to screw it up.
Hardly. The shortest path to the whizzbang the client wants will break PE all on its own.