I stopped worrying about those users years ago. Don't even bother with <noscript> anymore. It's 2015 and all browsers support JS these days. If you disable browser features then you really shouldn't be surprised when functionality breaks. The same would happen if you disabled CSS or images.
Funny you should invoke turning off CSS and images -- a lot of people have actually worked pretty hard to make standards that would work for cases where visitors had them disabled, or want low bandwidth options, or had their own custom style sheets, or weren't using a visual user agent (or even, for that matter, directing the user agent manually).
A failure of function availability from turning off images or CSS is a failure of developers, not a failure of the platform or user agent. You can find sites even in 2015 that either straight up work or degrade gracefully when being browsed by Lynx (a browser that I don't think has seen even a dot-release update since 1999) because they were put together by thoughtful professionals who understand the platform.
If you're trying to deliver an application that absolutely requires client side computation or specific browser APIs, you can have a pass for choosing the have your site not work without JS.
If your site really is just a series of documents (either static or dynamically computed), though, there really isn't much of an excuse.
>a lot of people have actually worked pretty hard to make standards that would work for cases where visitors had them disabled, or want low bandwidth options
In cases like this, wouldn't it make more sense to have that information available in an API? Once you've removed all styling and interaction, it seems like something that would work better as simply sending raw data, and letting the client decide what to do with it.
Schema.org is a good example of how this would work with the modern web. Markup relevant data (eg. product ratings, movie times) and let the clients render it as desired. You can still provide CSS/JS for modern browsers.
Seems a lot more elegant to me than designing pages to gracefully fallback when JS/CSS is missing, as that would seriously restrict design.
When you say "simply send raw data, and let the client decide what to do with it," you're more or less describing the original vision behind delivering markup before we got obsessed with instructions of one stripe or another to control visual presentation.
The crucial question is probably what's considered "raw" -- or perhaps to talk more in terms of web-related philosophy, which media type you'd expect most user agents to be able to handle by default... and despite the (reasonable) popularity of JSON, the answer is pretty much HTML with some kind of microformat information embedded via attributes.
In other words, the schema.org approach is arguably pretty much what you're supposed to do in order to design pages to gracefully fall back. I'm not sure why you might think those two concepts are at odds. :)
With the rate CSS is accumulating kludges and the fact that, when together with HTML5, it has already crossed the Turing-completeness threshold, I wonder how long it will take before companies start requiring browsers to disable subsets of CSS...
Seems to be missing all of the Digital Ocean UK prices. Also would like to see what OS flavours are offered, what networking options (private net, IPv6 range, IPv4 costs etc), hide plans that use non-SSD, which providers offer 2FA logins, backup costs.
The article was posted a week ago, but there are no updates about iOS 8.2 as of today and since it shouldn't be too long to just upgrade iOS and see if after 10 attempts the device gets wiped I'm guessing that the fix for CVE-2014-4451 actually patched this but the news wasn't as interesting as it would've been "iOS 8.2 vulnerable too" to update the post with
To be fair the average user doesn't ever need to see hidden folders. Who cares what the defaults are, set your Mac up however you want, I'm sure everyone here is plenty capable.
Also, people will spend days customizing their Linux systems, but think OS X needs to be exactly the way they want it out of the box. Why is that? I agree the software quality has declined over the past few years, but many people here seem to be nitpicking.
I think you get more casual viewers when something is on a prime channel.
People who might not normally watch something with the word 'lecture' in it would just skip over it in iPlayer might continue watching it if they run into it as it's being broadcast and something interesting is happening.
Honestly, the Internet of Things is a design proposition rather than a scientific one. Are there any algorithms or crucial technical innovations that are specific to IoT?
The totally underwhelming range of hacks that have emerged from the Arduino (etc.) maker scene makes me really skeptical that this is an important area for really valuable innovations. Design has more to do with phenomenology than technology, and probably always will.
It is (though it might be an encouragement to sample the joy that is BBC Four), but the bigger sadness is that they're down to 3 lecures. I used to attend in person as a kid, back in the days when there were five hour long lectures, allowing the presenter real space to explore their subject in depth. 3 hours is still a good run, but I hanker for what once was!