> You’ve probably done something like mow a lawn or vacuum a rug hundreds of times without thinking much about it. Some part of your brain works out a route that’s usually good enough to get the job done. People are actually pretty good at this, and better than you’d guess for a problem that is hard for computers. We wanted to see it for ourselves, so we built a lawn and asked people to mow it.

Is there supposed to be more content than this?

... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

▲

Dylan16807 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> ... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

By "asked people to mow it" they're talking about the visitors to the site. It's interactive.

It's somewhat a mistake not to have "skip to results" in the actual html. On the other hand, it makes sense they want to force people to see the landing page first. And unless they want to add a whole rendered fallback the results page isn't going to be super functional without javascript.

▲

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Without JavaScript, there is literally no page text beyond that point until the footer. Thee is no indication that there would be any interactive content. There is also no discussion of what the interactive content demonstrates after it. There are no "results" to which a "skip to results" could skip.

	▲	Dylan16807 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeah I know. But "literally no page text" is only missing a couple words. The correct version is super short. The noscript version needs a button and a big box with an X. And even then the button would only be half-functional so I understand skipping it. It mostly just needs a "missing content" warning.
	▲	frou_dh an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it