I was visiting a friend yesterday and wanted to show him how great TW
is.
We loaded the TW page and all we got was a brown top bar and a bit of
orange :(
It was because my friend had disabled JavaScript on his browser
(firefox).
I think many people do that.

So here is a Feature Request for Jeremy:
TW should display a warning or an error message when Javascript is off.
(It's probably just a matter of adding a <noscript>...</noscript>
message)

In addition of that warning, it is maybe possible to see the contents
of the tiddlers (not formatted of course). What do you think?

it's could be usefull .... in order to browse TW on pda (palm/ppc) :)

On 7/29/05, florian cauvin <florian.cau...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
~ Denis Méline - http://zRenard.com ~

I was visiting a friend yesterday and wanted to show him how great
T-bone steaks are.
We went to a restaurant and all we got was a brown candy bar and a bit
of
orange :(
It was because my friend had invited me to a vegetarian restaurant.
I think not many people do that.

So here is a request:
Vegetarian restaurants should display a warning: "no steaks served".
(It's probably just a matter of adding a <nosteak>...</nosteak>
message)
In addition to the warning, it may be possible to see a steak (not to
eat it, of course). What do you think?

Well, it's a matter of expectations, isn't it? Disabling javascript is
more secure, but: no risk no fun?

Nice response Christian... :)

Really, when people reduce the functionality of their browser they
should expect it to..um... reduce its functionality.

Anyway, my siteLoading test[1] (I'm still tweaking it...) could be an
answer. If javascript is disabled, it leaves the siteLoading tiddler
displayed.  You could add in text that would remind the user to enable
javascript.

-Clint

[1]- http://15black.bluedepot.com/twtests/1-2-28siteLoading.html

On 7/29/05, christianhauck <christianha...@christianhauck.net> wrote:
[funny -snip]

But I think Florian has a good point. People may reasonably want to
look at the *information* on a TiddlyWiki when the *behaviour* isn't
available. A good example might be a blind person using a
screenreader, or a mobile device that supports browsing but no script,
or inside a company with no-script policies or...

Anyhow, the content is still there in the page, why not make it
readable when JS isn't available? The key phrase is "Graceful
Degradation". I'm sure the code tweaks for this wouldn't be too
difficult, something useful in <noscript> would be a start.

See also: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com

I am glad I started this post, because Christian's response is
hilarious.

My point was simply that increasing accessibility is good. Especially,
as it is easy to add at least an error message.

Repeating data in <noscript> is redundant.

The siteLoading[1] test now displays the wiki content in an accessible
format in the background. However, unless the wiki content was
wikified in that state it is filled with /n and * and !  symbols in
funny places.

I agreed that an accessible option should exist; however, I think it
should be an output option, like 'Save read only version' (as
mentioned in this group else where) and that version could pre-wikify
the content.

-Clint

[1]- http://15black.bluedepot.com/twtests/1-2-28siteLoading.html

On 7/29/05, Clint Checketts <checke...@gmail.com> wrote:

True. I don't think anyone's suggesting that.

Ah, right. It's the wikitext encoded version that gets saved, not the
HTML - I should have guessed that from the fact it's all in
attributes... Hmm, that is tricky then, I guess you'd also need
something to transform (X)HTML into Wikitext for editing. That
probably shifts it a good way from your to-do list. I'm curious though
- is XSLT generally available within browser Javascript?

That sounds reasonable, I mistakenly thought the data could be presented as-is.

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com

Of course, with no javascript, it is the wiki notation that would
appear. So basically, it would show the same way that when you edit a
tiddler (except \n). So it is not-too-bad.

Here is a small addition to TW that makes it look not-too-bad when js
is disabled. it adds something before and after the </head> and <body>
tag:

...

<noscript>
<style type="text/css">
#contentWrapper { display: none;}
#storeArea { display: block; margin: 4em 17em 3em 17em;}
#storeArea div {
  padding: 0.5em; 0.5em; 0.5em; 0.5em;
  margin: 1em 0em 0em 0em;
  border-color: #f0f0f0 #606060 #404040 #d0d0d0;
  border-style: solid;
  border-width: 2px;
  height: 7em;
  overflow: auto;

</style>
</noscript>

</head>
<body onload="main();" onunload="checkUnsavedChanges();">

   <noscript>
       <div style="width:100%; text-align:center; font-weight: bold;
background-color:#dd1100; color:#ffffff; padding:1em 0em 1em 0em;">
       WARNING: JavaScript needs to be activated to display this page
properly.
       </div>
   </noscript>

...

note that I put the style inline for the warning. for some unknown
reason, it didn't display very well when it was defined in the
<noscript><style> part!

Thanks for that Florian, I think that's a worthwhile improvement and
I'll add it to the next release. Sadly, the text of the warning
message is untranslateable.

More serious is the way that tiddler titles are not visible. This is a
shortcoming of the storage format; I'd be interested to know if people
think it's worth changing?

Cheers

Jeremy.

On 30/07/05, florian cauvin <florian.cau...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Jeremy Ruston
mailto:jer...@osmosoft.com
http://www.tiddlywiki.com