Just started getting this now. Hopefully it’s some A/B testing that they’ll stop doing, but I’m not holding my breath

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I know this may come off as a surprise: but I imagine that requiring JS in 2024 isn’t a big deal to most people.

    Now of course Lemmy skews more into that small crowd.

    I don’t blame any website for requiring JS for full functionality in 2024.

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      All of the people replying to this saying you shouldn’t need JS are totally unaware how modern web development works.

      Yes, you could do many sites without JS, but the entire workforce for web development is trained with JS frameworks. To do otherwise would slow development time down significantly, not allow for certain functionality to exist (functionality you would 100% be unhappy was missing).

      Its not a question of possibility, its a question of feasibility.

      • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I wish JS would die and we get nice and simple websites back. I hate web dev so god damn much. The internet is pure enshittification

      • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        My question is if it wasn’t required before and is required now, what changed? It’s not like Google has added a killer feature recently - this is almost certainly related to those shitty AI answers that are forcing your actual search results even further down the page than they were already.

        • auzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Even things like lazy loading and such require js though

          A lot of features might not be obvious honestly

          If you’re interested though, you could check the source which should be able to tell you immediately what they use it for

          • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I love how Lemmy users just assume everyone is a coder… Just a funny observation, not being rude. Lol

      • filcuk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It’s far more than that. Even on a basic search page. Ever expanded the ‘Peaplo also ask’ section, for example? It loads more results based on your scroll position or interaction.
        There’s loads of little things like this, you may just not notice or care about it - which is another discussion.

    • Flipper@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      For full functionality sure. For basic functionality no. Searching on Google is basic functionality I’d say.

      • unrelatedkeg@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Not really. Showing ads and gobbling up data is Google Search’s core functionality, and JS is indispensible for that.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          33 minutes ago

          Idk if you were around when Google popped up, but it was at a time where the internet was feeling increasingly “loaded” with thousands of info per page. One where the popular engines tried to serve you twenty different things along with your search. Here’s an example:

          https://www.definitions-seo.com/images/altavista-3.jpg

          Or another:

          https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/uploaded/timeline/yahoo/yahoo-2003.png

          This isn’t a search engine. This is an all you can eat buffet, where the smallest plate is two main courses and three sides. And users just wanted a candy bar.

          So you see, a lot of us started to use Google because it was simple. It was decluttered. It was a text input with a ‘submit’ button, and that’s all we wanted. THAT is, and was, google’s core functionality, and I think it’d do them well to remember that.

          Now, if you wanna argue that’s changed, I can agree to that. But I don’t want morning news when I search for porn, that’s just gonna kill my boner. And I don’t want ads about coffee makers when I’ve just bought a coffee maker, that just means you’re incompetent. I want a search engine that searches things and provides results. That’s it. And just like Google caught momentum because they delivered this minimalistic facade that the users wanted, this is also how Google will die - at the hands of the next lightweight engine without corporate bullshit. Because the users will gobble it up.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You should still be able to use something like Lynx to browse and search. There’s no reason to block basic functionality except that you can and don’t care.