Comments on: JavaScript Enabled http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled blogging about life, the universe, and everything tech Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:06:53 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: jim http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled/comment-page-1#comment-39576 jim Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:06:27 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/javascript-enabled#comment-39576 alert("Welcome to my site") <a target="_blank" JavaScript Free Code</a> alert(”Welcome to my site”)

<a target=”_blank” JavaScript Free Code

]]> By: Jonny Axelsson http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled/comment-page-1#comment-19623 Jonny Axelsson Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:51:46 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/javascript-enabled#comment-19623 While it can be hard to have a fallback for a JavaScript application, where the whole point is the application, for other pages JS should work well if you do your content/presentation/behaviours right (in HTML/CSS/JS respectively). If for some reason the style sheet is unavailable or the browser is inferiour the page will be ugly but the content is still there. Similarly if JS is off you will lose some behaviours and conveniences (like client-side validation to avoid roundtrips to server) but the page will still be there. However 'noscript' is mostly gone. It may have made sense at the time of DHTML and document.write(), but in this day of DOM it is just in the way. Working with browsing on less common devices (phones, TVs, voice) JavaScript is rarely the problem. Having wrong assumptions on behalf of the user is. While it can be hard to have a fallback for a JavaScript application, where the whole point is the application, for other pages JS should work well if you do your content/presentation/behaviours right (in HTML/CSS/JS respectively). If for some reason the style sheet is unavailable or the browser is inferiour the page will be ugly but the content is still there. Similarly if JS is off you will lose some behaviours and conveniences (like client-side validation to avoid roundtrips to server) but the page will still be there.

However ‘noscript’ is mostly gone. It may have made sense at the time of DHTML and document.write(), but in this day of DOM it is just in the way.

Working with browsing on less common devices (phones, TVs, voice) JavaScript is rarely the problem. Having wrong assumptions on behalf of the user is.

]]> By: Jonny Axelsson http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled/comment-page-1#comment-19624 Jonny Axelsson Thu, 24 Feb 2005 05:51:46 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/javascript-enabled#comment-19624 While it can be hard to have a fallback for a JavaScript application, where the whole point is the application, for other pages JS should work well if you do your content/presentation/behaviours right (in HTML/CSS/JS respectively). If for some reason the style sheet is unavailable or the browser is inferiour the page will be ugly but the content is still there. Similarly if JS is off you will lose some behaviours and conveniences (like client-side validation to avoid roundtrips to server) but the page will still be there. However 'noscript' is mostly gone. It may have made sense at the time of DHTML and document.write(), but in this day of DOM it is just in the way. Working with browsing on less common devices (phones, TVs, voice) JavaScript is rarely the problem. Having wrong assumptions on behalf of the user is. While it can be hard to have a fallback for a JavaScript application, where the whole point is the application, for other pages JS should work well if you do your content/presentation/behaviours right (in HTML/CSS/JS respectively). If for some reason the style sheet is unavailable or the browser is inferiour the page will be ugly but the content is still there. Similarly if JS is off you will lose some behaviours and conveniences (like client-side validation to avoid roundtrips to server) but the page will still be there.

However ‘noscript’ is mostly gone. It may have made sense at the time of DHTML and document.write(), but in this day of DOM it is just in the way.

Working with browsing on less common devices (phones, TVs, voice) JavaScript is rarely the problem. Having wrong assumptions on behalf of the user is.

]]> By: Todd Huss http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled/comment-page-1#comment-19621 Todd Huss Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:22:11 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/javascript-enabled#comment-19621 I work for a pretty large website and our QA dept no longer tests our site with javascript disabled. The percentage of our users with javascript turned off is so small that it's no longer worth the additional cost required to test new functionality with javascript disabled. I'm sure there are some diehards who turn off cookies and javascript and want every site to work in lynx but it's my feeling that the economics are not compelling enough for a small to medium sized subscription based website to justify the cost of testing that functionality in those configurations. From a programmer/web designer perspective on the other hand I think it makes sense to support non-javascript and lynx users because it promotes good design/programming practices such as separation of content/presentation (html/css) and server side validation with optional client side validation. I work for a pretty large website and our QA dept no longer tests our site with javascript disabled. The percentage of our users with javascript turned off is so small that it’s no longer worth the additional cost required to test new functionality with javascript disabled.

I’m sure there are some diehards who turn off cookies and javascript and want every site to work in lynx but it’s my feeling that the economics are not compelling enough for a small to medium sized subscription based website to justify the cost of testing that functionality in those configurations.

From a programmer/web designer perspective on the other hand I think it makes sense to support non-javascript and lynx users because it promotes good design/programming practices such as separation of content/presentation (html/css) and server side validation with optional client side validation.

]]> By: Todd Huss http://almaer.com/blog/javascript-enabled/comment-page-1#comment-19622 Todd Huss Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:22:11 +0000 http://almaer.com/blog2/javascript-enabled#comment-19622 I work for a pretty large website and our QA dept no longer tests our site with javascript disabled. The percentage of our users with javascript turned off is so small that it's no longer worth the additional cost required to test new functionality with javascript disabled. I'm sure there are some diehards who turn off cookies and javascript and want every site to work in lynx but it's my feeling that the economics are not compelling enough for a small to medium sized subscription based website to justify the cost of testing that functionality in those configurations. From a programmer/web designer perspective on the other hand I think it makes sense to support non-javascript and lynx users because it promotes good design/programming practices such as separation of content/presentation (html/css) and server side validation with optional client side validation. I work for a pretty large website and our QA dept no longer tests our site with javascript disabled. The percentage of our users with javascript turned off is so small that it’s no longer worth the additional cost required to test new functionality with javascript disabled.

I’m sure there are some diehards who turn off cookies and javascript and want every site to work in lynx but it’s my feeling that the economics are not compelling enough for a small to medium sized subscription based website to justify the cost of testing that functionality in those configurations.

From a programmer/web designer perspective on the other hand I think it makes sense to support non-javascript and lynx users because it promotes good design/programming practices such as separation of content/presentation (html/css) and server side validation with optional client side validation.

]]>