The web, it's for everyone

I agree with the principle of this, but i disagree with including the javascript-is-disabled errors. If you browse the internet with one of the most important components of the internet disabled, you're going to find that a lot of stuff is broken, and displaying a warning that "hey, things are going to be broken here" is preferable to just displaying broken stuff.

The Chrome extension example is pretty weak. I don't know why anyone would think you could get something form the Chrome Web Store using Firefox.

I am so torn about this.<p>On one hand, I think that information should be available to the technological lowest common denominator. I hate apps that should be websites. I hate having my browser use 100% of my CPU for 30 seconds while trying to render a page with just 300 words of actual text content.<p>On the other hand, I work on web applications and I want to be able to create rich interactions using the best tools available. So I constantly wish I could require all my users to conform to some pretty steep minimum requirements.<p>I guess it comes down to appropriateness. There is a place for rich applications and there is a place for accessible content.

IE and Safari have self-interest motivated reasons for not supporting webrtc and for propagating their own technology, so no, I don&#x27;t agree with this. I&#x27;m not going to avoid building apps that make use of technology that companies like Apple and Microsoft don&#x27;t implement, and I don&#x27;t care if that this is a problem for people. These companies don&#x27;t really want to support the web as a platform. They want a crippled web because it beats their ecosystem lock in.

Not really sure what the point of this is. How do Google Now and GMail Offline == &#x27;The Web&#x27;? They are specific Apps designed to work in a specific manner, they are not &#x27;the web&#x27;. GMail does work with any browser when accessed via &#x27;the web&#x27;.<p>100% agree with the Apple example though. Why didn&#x27;t they stream in a more accessible format?! It just served to annoy people and exclude even more people from the Apple elite.<p>a few years ago banks and financial institutions seemed to be especially bad at restricting access to just IE. Thankfully they seem to have got better, but maybe that&#x27;s because I don&#x27;t use Opera anymore!<p>Originally I thought this was going to be an attack on Hungary&#x27;s Internet Tax or some freedom of speech protest, alas.

&quot;Javascript apps don&#x27;t work when I turn off Javascript :( :( :( :( :( :(&quot;<p>If you think the things made by jerks like me aren&#x27;t part of the web or whatever, then fine. You stay on your version of the web and I&#x27;ll stay on mine, and never the twain shall meet.<p>.....Until you actually need to do something useful.

The web has moved so far away from its original purpose that we need something to fill the role the web was originally supposed to be for. I hate having to have a massive complex piece of software that takes up a GB of RAM and includes an entire programming language just to be able to view simple text documents that link to each other.

The web IS for everyone - even for those who want to make proprietary apps and pages. I don&#x27;t see a problem with any of these examples unless I missed the one that tax dollars paid for.

You need Chrome to use Chrome extensions? Oh, the humanity!<p>That said, it&#x27;s time to call bullshit on Google&#x27;s whole &#x27;do no evil&#x27; shtick, considering how so many of their web apps only work on Chrome.