Yeah, my thought on that as well. Especially for a site that consists of nothing but a series of images with forward/back links and a slideshow feature (which clearly someone with javascript off doesn't want).
At first I thought the page had simply failed to load for some reason. Then I wondered whether a plain grey page was the joke and I just didn't get it.
Finally I thought to try it in the browser I have JS turned on in, but I hesitated: if the site is THAT dependent on JS to work, what are the odds that (a) it's something I really want to see, and (b) my already-doing-too-many-things computer will be able to run a page as JS-heavy as the NYT without stalling? (Golly, why else would a site not even work w/o JS, unless it was using JS for a whole lot of things?)
Instead, it turned out to be some lazy-ass web coder who couldn't be bothered to put in normal <a href> tags or even a "yeah, you need JS" banner. I mean, seriously, they had one job and they couldn't even finish that!
Indeed, most of the fuckups I saw documented there before I decided I'd spent enough time there are trivial compared to the halfassery of the site itself. Though I'll confess I chuckled over the bannister one.
[edit: wtf is this business w/ LJ changing my < tag back into < when I edit, and thus turning blue a chunk of text I'd already repaired?]
i figured the person/s behind the website were probably unintentionally joining in on the 'you had one job, and you blew it' theme of their lovely collection of other people's unattributed [aka stolen?] images ...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hhahahahaha!
Date: 2013-03-05 06:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-05 09:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-05 09:27 pm (UTC)Finally I thought to try it in the browser I have JS turned on in, but I hesitated: if the site is THAT dependent on JS to work, what are the odds that (a) it's something I really want to see, and (b) my already-doing-too-many-things computer will be able to run a page as JS-heavy as the NYT without stalling? (Golly, why else would a site not even work w/o JS, unless it was using JS for a whole lot of things?)
Instead, it turned out to be some lazy-ass web coder who couldn't be bothered to put in normal <a href> tags or even a "yeah, you need JS" banner. I mean, seriously, they had one job and they couldn't even finish that!
Indeed, most of the fuckups I saw documented there before I decided I'd spent enough time there are trivial compared to the halfassery of the site itself. Though I'll confess I chuckled over the bannister one.
[edit: wtf is this business w/ LJ changing my < tag back into < when I edit, and thus turning blue a chunk of text I'd already repaired?]
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-06 01:38 am (UTC)i figured the person/s behind the website were probably unintentionally joining in on the 'you had one job, and you blew it' theme of their lovely collection of other people's unattributed [aka stolen?] images ...