Handling browsers with Javascript turned off: W3C way?
Retlak
Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a browser
has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
<noscript>
<meta http-equiv="refresh"
content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
</noscript>
This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
Javascript".
This works, so what's the problem? It doesn't validate at
http://validator.w3.org, and there's no way to modify it so that it
will. W3C standards don't allow <noscript> in the header (illogical,
since <script> IS allowed in the header), and <meta> is not allowed
anywhere except in the header.
Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
validator, to this problem? A real solution is one that redirects to a
page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar. If
Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any of the
original page.
Kris
ret...@go.com (Retlak) wrote:
> The recommended (on dozens of websites) and effective (works in
> Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a browser
> has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
>
> <noscript>
> <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> </noscript>
The way to detect JavaScript is to use it. The NOSCRIPT section has only
effect in browsers that have JavaScript *enabled*: they ignore the
section. When unavailable in any way, the section gets treated like any
unknown tag; the content is rendered.
>
> This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> Javascript".
What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
>
> This works, so what's the problem?
"works".. see above.
> It doesn't validate at
> http://validator.w3.org, and there's no way to modify it so that it
> will.
Why redirect?
<noscript>
Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. We suggest you take
your business elsewhere. Bye.
</noscript>
> W3C standards don't allow <noscript> in the header (illogical,
> since <script> IS allowed in the header)
<script> is also allowed in the Body.
> and <meta> is not allowed
> anywhere except in the header.
>
> Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
> validator, to this problem?
Validation is the least of your problems if you continue to build
websites like this.
> A real solution is one that redirects to a
> page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar.
What if I cannot enable it, or won't enable it? What makes your design
dependant on it in the first place? Can't I use your site at all without
JavaScript? Are you convinced you made the right decision? Are you fine
with people taking their business elsewhere because of that decision?
> If
> Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any of the
> original page.
Why do you need JavaScript to do that in the first place?
--
Kris
<kris...@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
Jukka K. Korpela
> The recommended (on dozens of websites) and effective (works in
> Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a
> browser has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
>
> <noscript>
> <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> </noscript>
No, it is definitely not recommended - the HTML specification says
explicitly that authors should not use meta refresh for redirection.
Are you trolling, or just fundamentally ignorant?
> This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> Javascript".
I smell a troll.
> This works, so what's the problem?
There's no problem if you want to make a fool of yourself. It is worse
than idiotic, since real idiots (people with very low IQ) are not
responsible for their actions.
> It doesn't validate at
> http://validator.w3.org
Why do you bother if you have already decided to violate W3C
recommendations? Are you worried about the fact that if you ask a
validator verify whether your document complies with the DTD you
purport it to comply with, it will do exactly that=
> A real solution is one that redirects
> to a page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or
> similar. If Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any
> of the original page.
If you didn't smell like a troll, I might explain that on a page that
uses JavaScript for something useful that cannot currently be better
done otherwise (it is extremely improbable that you could have been
able to soup up something like that when you cannot even write an
RFC 1036 compliant From field), you would naturally include the
explanation into the <noscript> element itself, using a link to further
information if needed.
Such as
<noscript><big>This page contains nothing but a JavaScript-based tax
calculator for income tax in Southern Borduria. Your browser has
JavaScript disabled, or does not support JavaScript.</big></noscript>
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Bertilo Wennergren
> <noscript>
> <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> </noscript>
> Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
> validator, to this problem? A real solution is one that redirects to a
> page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar. If
> Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any of the
> original page.
Why does it have to redirect?
Try this:
<body>
<noscript>
<p>This page is dependant on JavaScript. Activate it or begone.</p>
</noscript>
<script type="text/javascript">
// The entire JavaScript-dependant content
document.write('...');
</script>
</body>
Actually it's better to load the JavaScript-depeandant content without
"document.write", using DOM-stuff etc., but it's easier to demonstrate
the idea this way. It would also be better to include actual alternative
content in the "noscript" element, or at least include a link to an
alternative page there. Or you could start with a non-JavaScript,
content-filled, page, that does a JavaScript redirect to a JavaScript
version of the page. Etc...
Page content that does not make any sense without JavaScript activated,
should be generated entirely with JavaScript.
--
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> <http://www.bertilow.com>
Bertilo Wennergren
> The way to detect JavaScript is to use it. The NOSCRIPT section has only
> effect in browsers that have JavaScript *enabled*: they ignore the
> section. When unavailable in any way, the section gets treated like any
> unknown tag; the content is rendered.
Which currently used browsers do not know the "noscript" tag?
Kris
Bertilo Wennergren <bert...@gmx.net> wrote:
> > The way to detect JavaScript is to use it. The NOSCRIPT section has only
> > effect in browsers that have JavaScript *enabled*: they ignore the
> > section. When unavailable in any way, the section gets treated like any
> > unknown tag; the content is rendered.
>
> Which currently used browsers do not know the "noscript" tag?
Generally, they all know it. They all comply with not rendering the
content of NOSCRIPT when JavaScript is available. If JavaScript is
disabled, they render it. Browsers that do not know any JavaScript
purposely render the NOSCRIPT section because they are explicitly
programmed to do so, or they render it anyway because that is the
general rule for HTML: to render the contents between unknown tags.
Alan J. Flavell
> <noscript>
> Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. We suggest you take
> your business elsewhere. Bye.
> </noscript>
Well, quite. Maybe they should add something like "of course this
violates national legislation on disability access, but why should we
care? - we're offshore, so pffffffffft to them". It'll probably get
them lots of extra business. (I hope your irony detector has been
serviced recently).
Retlak
> >
> > This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> > Javascript".
>
> What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
> on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
>
In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
remember a URL). Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
anything on the web. AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
Javascript since the 1990s.
Neal
> In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
> More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
> remember a URL). Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
> anything on the web. AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
> Javascript since the 1990s.
In realistic terms, Javascript is capable of being turned off in nearly
every browser. Why on earth would they give the user the right to do that
if it wasn't optional?
My mom would say, "And if 70% of all web sites jumped off a bridge, you'd
do it too?" Seriously, I disagree about that number. You ought to find the
source of this information.
Retlak
> Retlak:
>
> > <noscript>
> > <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> > content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> > </noscript>
>
> > Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
> > validator, to this problem? A real solution is one that redirects to a
> > page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar.
> Try this:
>
> <body>
> <noscript>
> <p>This page is dependant on JavaScript. Activate it or begone.</p>
> </noscript>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> // The entire JavaScript-dependant content
> document.write('...');
> </script>
> </body>
>
> Page content that does not make any sense without JavaScript activated,
> should be generated entirely with JavaScript.
That last sentence does make a point. However, what I really don't
like about this is that the page will pass the W3C validator too
trivially - all the page content is in quoted strings, so the
validator will ignore it completely!
Neal
> That last sentence does make a point. However, what I really don't
> like about this is that the page will pass the W3C validator too
> trivially - all the page content is in quoted strings, so the
> validator will ignore it completely!
But as the page as designed is useless to those who are parsing HTML and
not JS, is it necessary that it validates?
Harlan Messinger
"Kris" <kris...@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
news:kristiaan-28460...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
> ret...@go.com (Retlak) wrote:
>
> > The recommended (on dozens of websites) and effective (works in
> > Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a browser
> > has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
> >
> > <noscript>
> > <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> > content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> > </noscript>
>
> The way to detect JavaScript is to use it. The NOSCRIPT section has only
> effect in browsers that have JavaScript *enabled*: they ignore the
> section. When unavailable in any way, the section gets treated like any
> unknown tag; the content is rendered.
>
> >
> > This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> > Javascript".
>
> What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
> on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
Enjoyment of many television programs is difficult if accessed via a radio
with a TV band. Pity. All television programs should be designed so that the
audio fully conveys all the information, and any information conveyed
visually should be redundant. It is an abuse of the radio spectrum to
broadcast any sitcoms whose enjoyment relies on being able to see pratfalls,
facial expressions, outrageous outfits on sitcoms, or news and current event
programs understanding of which relies on being able to see maps and
diagrams and charts.
Yes, believe it or not, some people use the web as the propagation medium
for applications intended to run on the client, and of course they will only
work for people running browsers that support them. The concept that the
only legitimate uses of the Web are those that will be intelligible using an
HTML parser alone is absurd.
>
> Why redirect?
>
> <noscript>
> Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. We suggest you take
> your business elsewhere. Bye.
> </noscript>
Are you similarly indignant at television? Do you expect television
companies to wring their hands at the thought of all the business they're
losing by not making their programming enjoyable via audio alone?
>
> > W3C standards don't allow <noscript> in the header (illogical,
> > since <script> IS allowed in the header)
>
> <script> is also allowed in the Body.
>
> > and <meta> is not allowed
> > anywhere except in the header.
> >
> > Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
> > validator, to this problem?
>
> Validation is the least of your problems if you continue to build
> websites like this.
You haven't seen his web site (since he didn't give a URL). You know
absolutely nothing about it. You haven't the slightest idea why he's using
Javascript. Your reaction is mindless knee-jerking.
>
> > A real solution is one that redirects to a
> > page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar.
>
> What if I cannot enable it, or won't enable it? What makes your design
> dependant on it in the first place? Can't I use your site at all without
> JavaScript? Are you convinced you made the right decision? Are you fine
> with people taking their business elsewhere because of that decision?
>
> > If
> > Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any of the
> > original page.
>
> Why do you need JavaScript to do that in the first place?
Oh, finally! Don't you think you should have asked this *first*? Instead of
front-loading your abuse?
And if he *is* using Javascript where it would be better not to--do you
think it might simply never have occurred to him why it isn't a good idea,
and that it would be helpful for you to have just *explained* it to him,
instead of treating him like a criminal who should have known better?
Harlan Messinger
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkor...@cs.tut.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns948E873BFABC...@193.229.0.31...
> ret...@go.com (Retlak) wrote:
>
> > The recommended (on dozens of websites) and effective (works in
> > Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a
> > browser has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
> >
> > <noscript>
> > <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> > content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> > </noscript>
>
> No, it is definitely not recommended - the HTML specification says
> explicitly that authors should not use meta refresh for redirection.
> Are you trolling, or just fundamentally ignorant?
Gosh, does everybody in the world know everything there is to know about the
HTML specification in all its gory detail?
>
> > This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> > Javascript".
>
> I smell a troll.
Why? Good grief, Jukka, everyone isn't as brilliant as you are about HTML
(and I don't mean that sarcastically). If they were, no one would be coming
here asking questions, would they?
Neal
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> "Kris" <kris...@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
> news:kristiaan-28460...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
>> In article <4e9c40c6.04021...@posting.google.com>,
>> What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
>> on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
>
> Enjoyment of many television programs is difficult if accessed via a
> radio
> with a TV band. Pity. All television programs should be designed so that
> the
> audio fully conveys all the information, and any information conveyed
> visually should be redundant. It is an abuse of the radio spectrum to
> broadcast any sitcoms whose enjoyment relies on being able to see
> pratfalls,
> facial expressions, outrageous outfits on sitcoms, or news and current
> event
> programs understanding of which relies on being able to see maps and
> diagrams and charts.
Flaw is this: TV is not radio with pictures. It's a visual and audio
medium. Oh, and receiving pictures on your set won't ever cause the whole
set to crash. By contrast, the WWW was conceived and designed for HTML.
Javascript is an afterthought which many users choose to do without.
Plus, TV audio very often has an alternate selection which narrates the
video for the sight-impaired. So that medium does accommodate the disabled.
> Yes, believe it or not, some people use the web as the propagation medium
> for applications intended to run on the client, and of course they will
> only
> work for people running browsers that support them. The concept that the
> only legitimate uses of the Web are those that will be intelligible
> using an
> HTML parser alone is absurd.
I agree. But it's quite easy to provide either alternate content or some
polite message which instead of saying "As you don't use JS, screw you"
might say "We're providing something useful to others which isn't going to
be useful for you, and we're sorry."
>> <noscript>
>> Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. We suggest you take
>> your business elsewhere. Bye.
>> </noscript>
>
> Are you similarly indignant at television? Do you expect television
> companies to wring their hands at the thought of all the business they're
> losing by not making their programming enjoyable via audio alone?
They often do. Don't pretend the television industry has made no
accomodations.
>> Validation is the least of your problems if you continue to build
>> websites like this.
>
> You haven't seen his web site (since he didn't give a URL). You know
> absolutely nothing about it. You haven't the slightest idea why he's
> using
> Javascript. Your reaction is mindless knee-jerking.
1) URL should have been supplied.
2) Sure, it's knee-jerking. Welcome to Usenet.
3) But you cannot deny that it's sensless to validate a page which is all
javascript anyway? If there's no useful HTML - bearing in mind that for
HTML to be useful there must be content to mark up, and in this case the
only content is a script which might not even run on the computer in
question - then why validate?
> And if he *is* using Javascript where it would be better not to--do you
> think it might simply never have occurred to him why it isn't a good
> idea,
> and that it would be helpful for you to have just *explained* it to him,
> instead of treating him like a criminal who should have known better?
It's a tradition in this forum to treat the ignorant as war criminals
first. I don't like it, but here we are.
But in arguing with someone like that, the discussion gets sidetracked,
muddied. Some would say fun.
If it bothers you, far better to simply provide the advice you wish the
others had in the first place. Lead by example.
Bertilo Wennergren
> Bertilo Wennergren
>> Page content that does not make any sense without JavaScript activated,
>> should be generated entirely with JavaScript.
> That last sentence does make a point. However, what I really don't
> like about this is that the page will pass the W3C validator too
> trivially - all the page content is in quoted strings, so the
> validator will ignore it completely!
The validator is just a tool to help you get your code right.
Unfortunately you can't use the validator to check if the HTML generated
by client side JavaScript is correct HTML, but there is no sinning
involved in that. You'll just have to make sure you get it right anyway.
Andreas Prilop
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>
> In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
> More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
> remember a URL). Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
> anything on the web. AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
> Javascript since the 1990s.
Trolles eunt domus!
Charles Allen
> remember a URL). Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
> anything on the web. AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
I run with javascript off 100% of the time. If a site requires
javascript... I find an alternative. No problems doing that.
I do turn on cookies (current session only) for some internal sites at
work, but I use a different profile for that. External => no cookies.
What exactly, am I missing out on?
--
Charles Allen
Harlan Messinger
"Neal" <nea...@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:opr3bf23...@news.rcn.com...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 10:38:17 -0500, Harlan Messinger
> <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Kris" <kris...@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
> > news:kristiaan-28460...@newszilla.xs4all.nl...
> >> In article <4e9c40c6.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> >> What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website
dependant
> >> on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
> >
> > Enjoyment of many television programs is difficult if accessed via a
> > radio
> > with a TV band. Pity. All television programs should be designed so that
> > the
> > audio fully conveys all the information, and any information conveyed
> > visually should be redundant. It is an abuse of the radio spectrum to
> > broadcast any sitcoms whose enjoyment relies on being able to see
> > pratfalls,
> > facial expressions, outrageous outfits on sitcoms, or news and current
> > event
> > programs understanding of which relies on being able to see maps and
> > diagrams and charts.
>
> Flaw is this: TV is not radio with pictures. It's a visual and audio
> medium.
A web-based client-side application isn't a web page with script. It's an
application with code as well as content.
> Oh, and receiving pictures on your set won't ever cause the whole
> set to crash. By contrast, the WWW was conceived and designed for HTML.
> Javascript is an afterthought which many users choose to do without.
The <script> tag is defined in HTML. I'm certain this is evidence that
thought was given to the possibility that HTML might be used as a carrier
for client-side programming. If we go back to HTML 1.0 for all our notions
of what HTML was "conceived" and "designed" for, and therefore what
legitimate uses of it are, then we must concede that HTML is presentational,
that <font> tags are good, and the whole gamut.
I know people who choose to do without television. Is the fact that
"Frasier" or "Ab Fab" isn't available by radio a horrible affront to them?
>
> Plus, TV audio very often has an alternate selection which narrates the
> video for the sight-impaired.
Often? I've never seen anything appear in that feature. I think you mean
"almost never".
> So that medium does accommodate the disabled.
>
> > Yes, believe it or not, some people use the web as the propagation
medium
> > for applications intended to run on the client, and of course they will
> > only
> > work for people running browsers that support them. The concept that the
> > only legitimate uses of the Web are those that will be intelligible
> > using an
> > HTML parser alone is absurd.
>
> I agree.
I guess it's a difference of interpretation, but from my point of view you
seem to be changing your mind here.
> But it's quite easy to provide either alternate content or some
> polite message which instead of saying "As you don't use JS, screw you"
> might say "We're providing something useful to others which isn't going to
> be useful for you, and we're sorry."
That's a constructive suggestion for the OP.
>
> >> <noscript>
> >> Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. We suggest you take
> >> your business elsewhere. Bye.
> >> </noscript>
> >
> > Are you similarly indignant at television? Do you expect television
> > companies to wring their hands at the thought of all the business
they're
> > losing by not making their programming enjoyable via audio alone?
>
> They often do. Don't pretend the television industry has made no
> accomodations.
Mostly when required by law (like closed captioning), at least in the US.
And they have never made the kind of accommodations I referred to. As a
person who often has the TV in the living room for background noise while
I'm in the kitchen, I know this.
>
> >> Validation is the least of your problems if you continue to build
> >> websites like this.
> >
> > You haven't seen his web site (since he didn't give a URL). You know
> > absolutely nothing about it. You haven't the slightest idea why he's
> > using
> > Javascript. Your reaction is mindless knee-jerking.
>
> 1) URL should have been supplied.
Generally. I don't think it would hurt people to keep in mind that not
everyone has ready access to a publicly accessible web site these days for
this purpose, although that's less and less true as time goes on.
> 2) Sure, it's knee-jerking. Welcome to Usenet.
Which makes it beyond reproach? Someone acts like that without due
provocation, he can expect reactions similar to mine. Welcome to Usenet,
right back at him.
> 3) But you cannot deny that it's sensless to validate a page which is all
> javascript anyway? If there's no useful HTML - bearing in mind that for
> HTML to be useful there must be content to mark up, and in this case the
> only content is a script which might not even run on the computer in
> question - then why validate?
I'd be surprised if there's *only* a script. There is generally visible
content (labels, controls) for the script to act *on*. On the other hand, if
some of the HTML itself is generate by script, then of course the validation
is incomplete anyway, since it can only validate the HTML that is
hard-coded, not the HTML that is generated by script. So, I agree that there
*may* not be much point.
>
> > And if he *is* using Javascript where it would be better not to--do you
> > think it might simply never have occurred to him why it isn't a good
> > idea,
> > and that it would be helpful for you to have just *explained* it to him,
> > instead of treating him like a criminal who should have known better?
>
> It's a tradition in this forum to treat the ignorant as war criminals
> first. I don't like it, but here we are.
>
> But in arguing with someone like that, the discussion gets sidetracked,
> muddied. Some would say fun.
>
> If it bothers you, far better to simply provide the advice you wish the
> others had in the first place. Lead by example.
<grin>I'll think about it.</grin>
Chris Morris
> Kris <kris...@xs4all.netherlands> wrote
> > In article <4e9c40c6.04021...@posting.google.com>,
> > ret...@go.com (Retlak) wrote:
> > > This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
> > > Javascript".
> >
> > What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
> > on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
>
> In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
Wrong. My browser usually has Javascript disabled. I rarely notice a
problem. I visit a wide variety of sites, most of the ones I use
regularly are non-technical in nature and fairly widely used (BBC
news, for example)
> More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
> remember a URL).
Of the sites I visit regularly, none require Javascript for the
majority of the content. Some require it for minor enhancements (one
for a comments form that could be made to work near-identically
without it) (though I note the BBC news website has recently
implemented sensible fallback on their photo galleries, well done to
them)
I'm going to have to dispute that claim. I can believe that 70% of
sites [1] *use* Javascript. I can't believe that 70% require it, unless
you define rollover animations to be required.
[1] Depending on how you define sites.
> Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do anything on the
> web.
Okay, you don't need Javascript to do:
Text
Graphics
Animations
Page layout
Links and navigation
Forms
Web Applications (mostly)
etc.
What definition of 'anything' are you using that makes you think most
sites won't fit into that.
Yes, there are things that can only be (easily) done with Javascript.
But I can't think of many websites that need to use them to let you
get at the majority of the site.
> AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported Javascript since the
> 1990s.
No, w3m doesn't yet. Links has only just got basic Javascript
support, and it's somewhat unreliable as yet. Googlebot (and other
spiders) have never supported it, and aren't likely to for several
years yet. Amaya I don't think does either, but I don't have one to
test with right now. UP.Browser doesn't support Javascript, and that
barely existed (if at all) before this decade.
--
Chris
Alan J. Flavell
> Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
> anything on the web.
Google seems to do an excellent job without it.
> AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
> Javascript since the 1990s.
I only ever met one that didn't seem to have an obvious way to disable
it. Of course, I don't use that one.
OK, I know, I shouldn't let myself be provoked into feeding trolls.
--
This is done without sending any information to Microsoft.
Barry Pearson
[snip]
> Wrong. My browser usually has Javascript disabled. I rarely notice a
> problem. I visit a wide variety of sites, most of the ones I use
> regularly are non-technical in nature and fairly widely used (BBC
> news, for example)
> Of the sites I visit regularly, none require Javascript for the
> majority of the content. Some require it for minor enhancements (one
> for a comments form that could be made to work near-identically
> without it) (though I note the BBC news website has recently
> implemented sensible fallback on their photo galleries, well done to
> them)
> I'm going to have to dispute that claim. I can believe that 70% of
> sites [1] *use* Javascript. I can't believe that 70% require it,
> unless you define rollover animations to be required.
> Okay, you don't need Javascript to do:
> Text
> Graphics
> Animations
> Page layout
> Links and navigation
> Forms
> Web Applications (mostly)
> etc.
> What definition of 'anything' are you using that makes you think most
> sites won't fit into that.
> Yes, there are things that can only be (easily) done with Javascript.
> But I can't think of many websites that need to use them to let you
> get at the majority of the site.
I agree. I browse vast numbers of web sites each week. And I do so with lots
of things switched off.
Few sites that I *need* to view *require* any of those things - Javascript,
Flash, ActiveX, etc. I also inhibit unsolicited pop-up windows (which tends to
be caused by Javascript anyway). And animated GIFs.
I am hardly ever stopped from getting what I want, and I have a much better
browsing experience. It is very rare that I suffer from backing out of a site
that uses features that annoy me, because the sort of sites I *really* need
tend not to use such features. These features appear to have as much relevance
as the "go faster stripes" and those spoilers people put onto the backs of
their motor cars that I see in traffic jams.
As long as I have suitable blockers, I don't actually care if people spend
time developing those features. They can live in their world, and I'll browse
mine. I expect they have an audience who wants those things - don't they?
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
Peter Foti
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>
> OK, I know, I shouldn't let myself be provoked into feeding trolls.
Alan, I've seen you use the word "trolls" a couple of times in this thread,
but I'm not familiar with what it's supposed to mean. I assume this a UK
thing. :) Could you fill me in?
Thanks,
Pete
Nick Kew
ret...@go.com (Retlak) writes:
> In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
> More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
Nonsense.
If you'd said 70% of sites include some script, I could possibly
accept that. But that includes the huge number of sites where
it's optional for the user, as well as the deeply broken ones that
*require* it.
--
Nick Kew
Darin McGrew
> Alan, I've seen you use the word "trolls" a couple of times in this thread,
> but I'm not familiar with what it's supposed to mean. I assume this a UK
> thing. :) Could you fill me in?
See http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"You learn nothing new the third time a mule kicks you in the head."
Alan J. Flavell
> "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > OK, I know, I shouldn't let myself be provoked into feeding trolls.
>
> Alan, I've seen you use the word "trolls" a couple of times in this thread,
> but I'm not familiar with what it's supposed to mean.
http://www.google.com/search?q=jargon+troll
A long-standing piece of usenet jargon.
> I assume this a UK thing. :)
Not really, no...
> Could you fill me in?
Have I been trolled? the troll-o-meter is quivering...
all the best
Darin McGrew
> The recommended (on dozens of websites) and effective (works in
> Netscape, MSIE, Mozilla, probably others) way to detect if a browser
> has Javascript turned off is to put this in the <head>:
>
> <noscript>
> <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> content="1;url=http://yourURL/nojscript.html">
> </noscript>
And what if the META refresh hack is disabled/unsupported?
> Has anyone found a real solution, which validates at the W3C
> validator, to this problem? A real solution is one that redirects to a
> page on which I can put "You need to enable Javascript" or similar. If
> Javascript is turned off, it is pointless to render any of the
> original page.
Non-JavaScript functionality is a priority 1 checkpoint on the W3C's Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
Jukka K. Korpela
> If we go back to HTML 1.0
Isn't it wonderful that we can detect ignorance or trolling (who cares
about the difference?) on the simple basis of making our newsreader do
something with messages that contain the string "HTML 1.0" (unless
followed by a suitable phrase)?
Ignorance is excusable; we're all born ignorant, and remain ignorant in
most affairs all of our lives. But when you start an argument where you
present strong opinions and you reveal complete ignorance of the
basics, you have turned natural ignorance into something much worse.
Of course, I will present my apology as soon as you can give us the
slightest evidence of your ever having even looked at the HTML 1.0
specification.
Tim
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Gosh, does everybody in the world know everything there is to know about the
> HTML specification in all its gory detail?
When someone is building something in a particular medium, they're
supposed to know what they're doing, or find out how to do what they're
doing.
Why do people get into website publishing if they don't want to know how
to do what they're doing?
--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Tim
>>> This redirects to a doc which typically says "You need to enable
>>> Javascript".
"Kris" <kris...@xs4all.netherlands> wrote in message
>> What is the use of that? You mean, you have built your website dependant
>> on an optional browserfeature? Pity.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Enjoyment of many television programs is difficult if accessed via a radio
> with a TV band. Pity. All television programs should be designed so that the
> audio fully conveys all the information, and any information conveyed
> visually should be redundant. It is an abuse of the radio spectrum to
> broadcast any sitcoms whose enjoyment relies on being able to see pratfalls,
> facial expressions, outrageous outfits on sitcoms, or news and current event
> programs understanding of which relies on being able to see maps and
> diagrams and charts.
Analogies are never exactly appropriate. Considering the nature of
television development, you'd be closer to consider the idea of whether
you can expect every television set in existence to be able to display a
picture just because it's a video signal, regardless of what type of
video signal it is (ignoring that only some support PAL, or NTSC, or
digital, or teletext, etc.).
i.e. A dependence on something that's not dependable, such as
JavaScript, is as hostile as saying that a television program can *only*
be used if you have a 5.1 sound system, or teletext, or any other
add-on, or non-universal scheme of doing things.
JavaScript, for instance, is an inconsistently supported thing. Anybody
who really knows what they're doing, knows that. Even before you get to
the stage of whether it's enabled or even supported as a whole.
Tim
ret...@go.com (Retlak) wrote:
> In practical terms, Javascript is not really an "optional feature".
> More than 70% of all web sites require Javascript (no, I can't
> remember a URL). Realistically, you need to enable Javascript to do
> anything on the web. AFAIK all browsers except Lynx have supported
> Javascript since the 1990s.
Funny how on nearly every site that I visit, it's not essential. Some
don't even use it at all. It's "need," as always, depends on the
circumstances.
And, as far as I'm aware, every different browser interprets scripting
in different, and often incompatible ways. Including different versions
of the same browser. Therein lies one of the major problems, the other
major problem being exploits.
For what it's worth, "all" browsers have *not* supported is since 1990.
Many may have, and many more may have after that date.