I sometimes disable JavaScript to see how a website behaves without it. I'm often surprised how much the content display relies on it. But I'm unsure whether it's a bug. I read that almost everybody has JavaScript enabled on their device.
Thoughts?
3
-
While I agree with the answer Thomas provided, I don't think we have enough info to answer. Are you asking this in the context of a11y - web accessibility and any of the WCAG standards? Is this in context with using any accessibility devices like screen readers, keyboard navigation, etc?– Lee JensenCommented May 30 at 18:03
-
1Yes, that's why I put the "accessibility" tag :)– Y-B CauseCommented May 31 at 4:28
-
yeah, I saw that, but seems like that may not be taken into account. Are you experiencing any current problems with a11y with JS disabled? Are you unable to use specific a11y tools because us it? Are you trying to get answers to help pursue an argument to take to your team to ensure a11y? Are they unsupportive of a11y efforts? More specifics and purpose will help!– Lee JensenCommented May 31 at 18:46
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
I'm not an a11y expert, but one heuristic I tend to use is to ask whether something fails "gracefully" in the event of an error, whether the error is inability to run JavaScript, access a database, or otherwise not get everything it expected for loading the page.
So, for example, if the whole page just ends up being blank, that's not failing gracefully. Having a fallback where at least something is displayed along with an indication of what the problem is (e.g. "please enable JavaScript") would, to me, make any limitations on functionality more acceptable.
A bug - or, more precisely, a defect - requires that something doesn't meet its requirements or specifications.
If the specifications say that JavaScript is required to use the system, then testing with JavaScript disabled is a waste. These tests don't make any assertions about the system. Although it could be interesting to understand what a user with JavaScript disabled would see and there could be opportunities to improve the user experience in these cases, it wouldn't be a defect.
If there are requirements that users be able to see certain data or perform certain operations even with JavaScript disabled, then this would be a valid test. If disabling JavaScript prevents access to data or functionality that should be accessible, then this would be a bug.
-
I have never seen any specification saying "JavaScript is required" (in my context, specifications only mention business needs) Commented May 31 at 4:27
-
@Y-BCause I have seen specifications that say that a web application must provide certain functionality with JavaScript disabled. A lack of statement either way could be seen as ambiguous. However, a reasonable default could be the expectation that JavaScript is enabled. Clarity would be needed from someone in a position to make a decision on the requirements.– Thomas Owens ♦Commented May 31 at 10:49
-
@ThomasOwens The clarity we have so far is that answers need to take a11y - web accessibility into account. Commented May 31 at 18:43
-
@LeeJensen That doesn't impact the question or this answer at all. If there is a requirement to support some accessibility standard or assistive device that requires the website to behave in a certain way with JavaScript disabled, this answer holds. The testing is valid, the requirements are not satisfied, and it's a bug. If there is no such requirement, then the testing is not valid and there is no bug.– Thomas Owens ♦Commented May 31 at 22:37