10% of people dance w/o javascript enabled

[khaki]

okay...
we dance this dance in post after post after post.

10% of people do not have javascrip enabled (for whatever reason).

The reasons to date include:

Disability
Intranet restrictions
Personal preference

Can anyone else provide additional reasons?

Also....
for those who are disabled....
who here can speak knowledgably on this?
Are there browsers for the disabled that do interpret all javascript?
How about frames and table solutions?
Should we qualify every frame and table post the same way? (as anti-disabled?)
and what about forms? (i'm asking... i don't know)

This subject is important...but it's become like a tired act.
Is there a way to stop the rhetoric... and just get to the facts?

Would anyone like to intelligently and knowledgably discuss this issue for positive purposes?

;) k

[viravan]

I disabled JavaScript to stop the annoying popups.....If I go to a site that I wanted something and it wouldn't work without JavaScript, I'll enable it manually.

:)

V.V.

[havik]

Browser Security may be set at a level (or customized) to disable scripts of any kind. I know some people who feel better knowing this fact.

Havik

[khaki]

thanks V.V. !
That is really interesting.
So you are saying that you personally choose to disable javascript... but that you will enable it if you find it necessary or compelling to do so.

So that makes me wonder... do you personally feel that web developers who program with disregard for non-javascript surfers are wrong to do so (not taking into account the disabled)?

It's a personal opinion... so it can't be wrong. I'm just really curious (and you were the first to answer... and it was a great start!).

curiousity will probably kill this cat...
;) k

[khaki]

Browser Security may be set at a level (or customized) to disable scripts of any kind. I know some people who feel better knowing this fact.okay Havik... that is a valid point.
So .... do you personally think that any scripted webpage should be rewritten to accomodate those who set security levels beyond the norm?
Or... what is the norm?! (there's a question!).
Once again... it's a personal opinion, and it cannot be wrong.

dancing with the devil... and wondering if he dips...
;) k

[viravan]

do you personally feel that web developers who program with disregard for non-javascript surfers are wrong to do so



Not wrong, lazy? maybe. How much effort does it take to add a little message inside <NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>???


:)

V.V.

[havik]

Well, first of all, in a perfect world there'd be only one way to program a page that'd work on all browsers and their respective versions, and on all operating systems and their versions.

But, I've already made peace with the fact that this'll never happen. Javascript is another one of these issues. It needs to be carefully programmed to have cross-browser capability. Not only that, as this thread discuess, it can be disabled entirely.

My opinion is this. Pages that are viewed by a diverse group (ie. yahoo, cnn, government pages, etc...) should be coded to work for everyone wishing to view that site. Whether javascript is enabled or not.

The other pages, (private, personal, etc...) can have the option of providing a javascript disabled page if they desire.

So basically, certain pages should be required to provide javascript disabled pages ( just a pure html page ), while others should be given the option.

Havik

EDITED: Just a note that this is in response to khaki's second posting, it just didn't get posted in time. :D

[khaki]

So far Havik and I are perfectly in-line in our thinking on this issue.

It doesn't mean that we are right... although you would be wrong to think otherwise. lol.

But seriously... not all web pages are created equal... and not all target audiences are the same.
That is a major distinction.

(plus... Havik has turned me on to some pretty cool music lately.. so he's the man!)
..........................

As to V.V.'s statement about being lazy:
That's probably true to some degree - which is why V.V. is so smart to put maybe in there (how smart is that?!)
But for a professional developer, definitely! And... guilty as charged :rolleyes: !
(sh*t) ... but really... i'm on the intranet! I ran outta gas. I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from outta town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locust's. It wasn't my fault, I swear to God!

:rolleyes: k

[viravan]

how smart is that?!)


Never claim to be smart.... controversial, definitely.

:)

V.V.

[havik]

Never play stupid with a stupid person either, they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Oh and thanks for the modest comment khaki, you're the woman!

Havik

EDITED: Just for the sake of being edited.

[khaki]

V.V. wrote: Never claim to be smart.... controversial, definitely.hmm.....
need a wing-man (errr... woman... errrr... girl)? lol :) Havik wrote: Oh and thanks for the modest comment khaki, you're the woman!I'm still a bit perky Havik... so i still think of myself as a girl (although... around here... where i live... I'm still considered just a brat!).

But.... I've fallen off the subject and I can't get up!
:rolleyes: k

[apezVal]

A recent survey claims that about one-third of U.S. households now have home PCs and the number is expected to double within 5 years,...so 10% is still a lot of java-enabled units only in the USA. I think the main reason this is not a larger fraction is the fact that the average pc user has been made hyper-paranoid about computer viruses and hacker invasion into their privacy and they perceive Java enabling as a way to only encourage these possibilities. The computer security ap developers do, imo, encourage their fears which of course sells lots of fire-wall and similar security programs, some of which i have found to be worse than a pc virus to have on your system if you ever need to remove it.

[JackTheTripper]

As designers and developers, we can only do so much. we have to at some point put some responsibility on the end user. I took over a web site that was basically 2 sites in 1. One for IE 4 and above (Which also handled Opera, Mozilla and Netscape 6 and above) and one for Netscape 4.7. Just the other day I was given the OK to get rid of the netscape 4.7 site and just refer them to a page urging them up upgrade or the site would not load correctly, then loading the site.

Same thing with Javascript or Flash for that matter. The end user has a choice. Install flash and/or enable JavaScript, or find another site.

And I work for a financial institution. But we believe at some point you've gotta stop holding their hand.

[khaki]

good point apezVal...

and did you ever notice how evil-looking that little cuppa-joe icon is when it's sitting in the Windows tray?
No wonder people are afraid :eek: .

And how 'bout this?
If IE banished Javascript the same way that Netscape banished VB, this wouldn't even be an issue.
(Netscape who? Javascript what?).

If television stations (and TV manufactures) had to jump through these same hoops... we'd all still be watching Gilligan's Island (right little buddy? lol). Personally I need my Survivor... so I don't even dare think of such a thing :rolleyes: .

..But i'm off-topic again.
However apezVal raises a great point:
why are people afraid of Javascript?
And more importantly...
why are IT people so afraid of Javascript?
Can anyone name the last great Javascript virus that swept through the internet (or behind corporate fire-walls)?
VB viruses... sure.
Javascript? ..... anyone?

(pop-ups don't count. Stay away from the porn sites :eek: and the danger decreases dramatically!).

okay... sorry.. rambled again...
:rolleyes: k

[MikeOS]

I'm also lost about this concern with Javascript security, it can't access someones drive, so what's the problem!!! I think this is the media getting things wrong again and building up paranoia. I once worked at a company so paranoid about security they disconnected all the floppy and cd drives thoughout the entire company as they thought someone would bring in a virus.

Anyway, I always leave Javascript enabled, it only takes a split second to close a pop up window, and if a site I go to gets pop up window happy then I just don't go back there. Apart from that it's important to have client side scripting enabled in order to remove some of the burden on the server, but each to their own.

[jeffmott]

A recent survey claims that about one-third of U.S. households now have home PCs and the number is expected to double within 5 years,...so 10% is still a lot of java-enabled units only in the USAYes, it is a lot of JavaScript enabled units, and it's a lot of disabled ones also. That's why it's better to provide the current ratio, 1:10. And with all those home PCs, you statement doesn't take into account how many of those home users are disabled or how many are fed up with Web sites that abuse it.

But we believe at some point you've gotta stop holding their handExcept this dispute won't be fixed by users upgrading their browsers. If they're disabled, there's nothing they can do. If they choose to disable it, that choice isn't going to change with a new browser.

I think the main reason this is not a larger fraction is the fact that the average pc user has been made hyper-paranoid about computer viruses and hacker invasion into their privacy and they perceive Java enabling as a way to only encourage these possibilitiesOf the people who choose to disable it, I think it's more just that they're annoyed. Some of the things that annoy me with client side scripting: The most common answer: pop-ups. Those damned no right click scripts. Removing my toolbars and replacing it with their custom made back button (what the hell is wrong with what I've got?!?). Changing the focus on load to a text box in a login page. I can't tell you how many times this seems to happen. Just a single large image or lag in the internet keeps the page from officialy being loaded. I'll type in my user name, then as I move on to type my password the page finishes loading, focus is moved back to the user name and I end up typing half my password in plain text appended to my user name.

Those are some reasons I can think of off hand, but I know there are more. It's all these little things. Even when they work the way they were supposed to are still almost completely pointless. If you move any main functionality to server-side code and remove the frivolous snippets you'll find there is virtually no use for any client side scripting whatsoever.

EDIT: Moving functionality to server-side also saves on a lot of headaches for the developer. Their worries for browser compatibility in this area are now illeviated.

ANOTHER EDIT: Another annoyance. A new style of ad. It isn't a pop-up, but it overlaps the content on the actual site. You have to wait for it to finally present you with a close button before you can continue on doing what you originally wanted to do. And these are appearing on many official sites, not just porn sites, so there is no good way to avoid them.

[JackTheTripper]

Originally posted by jeffmott

Except this dispute won't be fixed by users upgrading their browsers. If they're disabled, there's nothing they can do. If they choose to disable it, that choice isn't going to change with a new browser.


Re: Hand holding...

I know upgrading their browser won't solve that but they still need to take SOME responsibility about knowing how their PC works and enabeling javascript was my point. It cracks me up when someone complains about our web site sucking and you ask what browser version they have and they answer "I don't know" Turns out they're on IE 3 or something ancient. Tell them to upgrade and they want step by step instructions. :rolleyes: "Call Microsoft. Or Dell. I only take care of the site, not your PC."

I know, I'm being harsh but it's just one person's opinion.

[jeffmott]

but they still need to take SOME responsibility about knowing how their PC works and enabeling javascript was my pointSome people know exactly how their PC works and disable JavaScript. Taking responsibility for your computer is not equivalent to enabling JavaScript. I understand the rest of what you said and it does make sense... just not in this thread.

[apezVal]

>a great point:
why are people afraid of Javascript?

A vast majority of the populace is I think technophobic (example,...twins separated by many hours are identical twins...and these can also be clones created by fertility medicine-science. They are still just twins.) But i am a biologist commenting on this.
When the first rail-road trains were first built and the first trains were to run on the new tracks, people were fearful of the new speed-freaky technology, almost no one had ever traveled faster than 15 miles an hour on horse-back. They were afraid that their brains might be expelled from their craniums at 30mph! The first to travel on the trains took note pads with them so they could write-down all the bizarr sensory experiences they might have with the new method of getting from point A to B so gawd-awful fast.

The pc security people (not to mention any names like McAffee and Norton) are marketing geniuses with the fire-wall technology to take abvantage of the consumer's phobias w using the web. Their gargoyles to protect seem to me all geared to just make for more irrational fear of the technology.
You will think your system is being scanned every so many minutes by Bloefield and the Mysterians!

I guess there are many situations where all the hoopla to fire-wall is justified, but for the average user who is not concealling Fed-gov classified data and who is in his will on his personal pc, ...it is all rather exagerated and when i used these aps i had more associated hangs and problems than the protection seemed to justify. Of course one major pc virus is all it takes to make one value these commercialized moats (and good-luck to try to get tech-support if you need them either way!) , ...good advice is to keep back-ups on cdrw and re-install your op-system if it ever gets so 'virally go-to' ... bad and choose to live without the irrational fears...IMO.
__ Jim

[AdamBrill]

About the security, I have received a virus made out of javascript and a little java(if I remember right). I don't know what it would have done since Norton picked it up, but I do know that it wasn't going to do anything nice for me... :D I still leave javascript enabled since I like to see the sites how they were designed to be viewed, but I can see other peoples point. I think the main reason for someone turning it off is still because it is abused. I don't think anyone can argue with that... ;)

[jeffmott]

>a great point:
why are people afraid of Javascript?
A vast majority of the populace is I think technophobicOf the people who disable JavaScript, I have rarely heard them say it was because they were afraid someone would hack their computer.

but for the average user who is not concealling Fed-gov classified data and who is in his will on his personal pc, ...it is all rather exageratedIt is true, the odds of any single person's computer being randomly picked from the millions available is very small and they probably aren't at very high risk. And it's also true they don't have secretive federal documents. But don't think for one moment that they don't have anything to steal. What if they file their taxes online? Bank statements? Credit cards? Names, birthdates, card numbers, social security numbers. And possibly all simply in their internet cache. Enough to steal a person's identity, or at least all their money.

[khaki]

As per jeffmott's last post:
Steal?
From cache?
With Javascript?
hmmm....
it shouldn't just be disabled then... it should be banned!
... but let's not get hysterical (over none issues).

Seriously... other than annoying pop-ups and un-realistically percieved threats... why the "Javascript fear"?
Seriously?

So far... plenty of rhetoric. Where's the facts?
Honestly... I'm not busting-chops (really!).
But 10% refuse to activate it. Is this the reason?
Fear from what?!
and if so... eliminate it completely!
... but that's not it (we all know that).
So.......?


Anyone?
:confused: k

[justron]

From all the comments I've heard on the subject of disabling javascript I think the #1 reason is anal retentive web surfers.

all the user friendly features you need have been built into windows etc to enable you to simply resize etc your window and very easily close a popup

popups are very handy for displaying certain typs of content on a web site.
albeit there are some who abuse javascript , the browser language is a big part of the web.
you're only cutting off your nose despite your face by disabling it.
I liken it to cruising the autobon in a gocart.

[khalidali63]

:)
to Jeff

Is it possible for you to please let us all know how in the world javascript can access the cache resources from a machine. :p

Cheers all

Khalid

[AdamBrill]

Khaki, did you see my post? As stated there, there are bad things that can be done with javascript. Normally they don't use only javascript, but a mixture of all of the scripting languages. Still about the biggest problem on the Web is ActiveX, not javascript. The worst thing I could ever do in javascript is read a file off of the users computer, which is possible. But, at least to me, the damage done by turning it off seems greater than the risk of leaving it on... ;)

[jeffmott]

As per jeffmott's last post:
Steal?
From cache?
With Javascript?Is it possible for you to please let us all know how in the world javascript can access the cache resources from a machineI never said it could. I was responding to apezVal, who at the time was talking about firewalls and networking in general.

Is this the reason?
Fear from what?!There is no fear (not enough to be worth mentioning any). It's just a major pain in the a$$.

popups are very handy for displaying certain typs of content on a web siteYes it is, but the majority of the time it is used to put advertisement after advertisement right in your face. Many sites who do this will have the same pop-up on every single one of their pages, so you can't just close it once and be done with it. And let's not forget when they open another pop-up triggered by closing the first one.

[khaki]

okay... now this thread has gone in a direction which is a bit away from it's original intention (my original intention, anyway).

But, it raises some really interesting points... and I'd like to highlight one of those points in particular now (and p-l-e-a-s-e... Jeff... p-l-e-a-s-e... don't get mad at me or feel that I am picking on you when I mention this. okay? :( ).

The following quote from a different thread is the reason why I created this thread (seriously!):JeffMott wrote: It should also be noted that a JavaScript solution will not work for 1 in every 10 users. All pages should be designed so they are still be usable when scripts are turned off or not supported.Now... this is not to single-out Jeff (since this same thing is said by at least a dozen regulars here all the time).

But... what does it really say?
(based on everything that has been posted so far in this thread)

To me... it says...
Don't code in Javascript because some people have chosen to disable it on thier own machines due to paranoia, fear, abuse, annoyance.
(which is kinda funny... because those are some of the same reasons that my girlfriend gave for not wanting to go to see Nirvana at Roseland back in 1993... and you know what? She missed a great show!)

But anyway... there has to be some real reasons to convince me (and other web developers) to jump through hoops and carefully craft (or eliminate) Javascript solutions just so that we can appease a group that has chosen to exclude itself.
(whether individually, or entire intranet watchdogs)

The biggest reason (I think) is that of the disabled... and I was hoping to hear more about that (since I don't wish to be insensitive to those who would be frustarated and/or excluded by anything that I have done).

I was sorta hoping that cijori would join this discussion... since he recently revealed (in a different thread) that he knows of 26 disabled individuals who are affected by Javascript solutions, and I was hoping that he could help us understand about the browsers that are used and other such detail (I guess I should just PM him and invite him to join the discussion :rolleyes: )

Anyway... I am so far not moved by the "Pro-Disable" group to concern myself with their exclusion (choice = choice).

Unless, of course, there are some genuine and valid reasons (and believe me.... I really do want to hear them! Honestly!)

Anyone? please?
;) k

[khalidali63]

Originally posted by AdamBrill
....Still about the biggest problem on the Web is ActiveX, not javascript.... ;)

I totally agree,JavaScript bashing is all done by MS school of crooks..:p

Originally posted by AdamBrill
.....
The worst thing I could ever do in javascript is read a file off of the users computer, which is possible. But, at least to me,..........


You are right ,but lets just be fair.As of today,unless aided by some ActiveX Crap you can not,and I repeat can not read a file from users system resources.
JavaScript alone does no harm any system.
As for popup windows complainers,its been about 2 yrs that mozilla has the popup killer built in it that works perfectly,Just leave the damn IE and you'll be happy.:D
I think its just that MS hated the fact that how can a technology that is closely knitted with Suns java programming language,can take over the net...
I can actually picture big billy crying over it...lol

Khalid

[khaki]

yikes!
Khalid has gotten started on his anti-Microsoft rant again! :eek: (wink).

One respectful request... please:

Can we NOT turn this into an MS vs Sun debate? please?

The topic is about developing with Javascript.

Khalid may or may not be correct that the "MS school of crooks" (lol) are the one's bashing Javascript (although I disagree... and no one supports Microsoft more passionately than I :rolleyes: ... since IE could have rendered Javascript useless simply by not supporting it).

So anyway...
the "fear" of Javascript taking control of the PC/Network is apparently bogus (right?).
I'm fully Javascript enabled, and there are no little coffee cups running around turning off my monitor, and paper-jamming my laser-printer, or anything.... so...

(by the way... i sent an invitation to cijori to join the discussion. hopefully he will. we'll see, i guess)

Maybe we could hear from the 10% Disclaimer-Crowd on this?
Anyone?
:confused: k

[apezVal]

>The topic is about developing with Javascript.

As I see it Javascript RULES!
as well as the consumer.
As more and more users and developers experience the functionality and all that the keyboard-efficient methodology has to offer for the pc enjoyment of the internet, it will only become all the more popular and more and more the standard (sorry VB!).

The progress with this has to parallel
the Browser technology, and I can see great things in the future since not only necessity but other aspects (mainly entertaining) can be the parent of invention.

As for popups (of a category) ...there is no future, and extinction seems logical (as sure as we deplore the flies and their lords)... as no one in their right mind wants this crap interrupting their web-surfing. and so many sites that use it will not have returns visits, so get smart.
AOL has just recently offered their subscribers an optional popup quelcher that works great and more and more upper tree technology is certain to follow to keep the web-experience all that the "founders" (not Al Gore) intended.
Namely and enjoyable access to the world and a learning experience (you are free to choose all the sleeze you want,...I won't be one to censor you).

In sum, I see Javascript as a great tool that, in some fundamental way, excells at enabling minds to translate numbers and alphabets into a web-page activity and "scenario" and their may be no end as to how "advanced" this can evolve to become.....how about
"Holographic js" in the year 2929???
Get extemporaneous and go with the flow (the consumer and
the entertainment 'value' will probably remain the determining factors).

[khalidali63]

Originally posted by khaki
yikes!
... started on his anti-Microsoft rant again! k

:D
Wanted to spice it up a bit,
Anyways there is no solid ground to not use JavaScript,and even if thre were,those who want to disable it,good for them,they have no right dictate anybody else to do the same,its all about matter of choice.An in my view it should remain like that.

Cheers

Khalid

[havik]

Originally posted by MikeOS
I once worked at a company so paranoid about security they disconnected all the floppy and cd drives thoughout the entire company as they thought someone would bring in a virus.

I had to use this quote because it supports a point I was going to make.
Your going to find people out there who are paranoid about this and that. Giving the option to enable Javascript or not doesn't comfort these people.

Why is there an option to enable? Does that mean it can do harm? Should I disable it? What'll it do to my system? etc...

Now I ask, should we accommodate these people? In some cases yes (ie disabled), but it more cases no because they made the choice already (so we don't have to).

That's how I feel anyways, probably because its part of my job to accommodate the others, that 10% that chooses to make web development even more troublesome than it already is.

Oh well, what can you do? :D

Havik

[khaki]

ok apezVal...

We'll continue this discussion under the assumption that Javascript is good and that it will be around for a while (lol).

Although... don't be "sorry" for VB. It lives on the server-side, and it's future is tied to Microsoft (which... all attempts to the contrary... remains powerful and ever-present). But that's another topic (!!!).

hmmm.... maybe i need to start a fresh thread to get this back on-topic.

So...
where are all the peole who like to write that Javascript solutions will fail for 1 of every 10 users with javascrip not enabled?!

I see it written time after time after time. Yet... nothing here?
C'mon.
This is the opportunity to discuss it.

:confused: k

[AdamBrill]

Here's my personal feeling on the matter. Use javascript. But, using javascript gives you no excuse to code like crap. I'm not pointing this at anyone in perticular, but most people TRY to make it NOT work without javascript. Such as this:

<a href="javascript:window.open('test.htm');">

There is no reason to code like that. Why not do it like this??

<a href="test.htm" target="_blank" onclick="javascript:window.open('test.htm'); return false;">

Then it won't fail for the people without javascript. This is where people just decide they are going to program to EXCLUDE javascript, which is completely dumb IMO. I use javascript a lot, but make sure that anywhere that it can, it works without javascript. If everyone would do this, I think the people without javascript would be happy...

[khaki]

Adam makes a great point (although when he says: "I'm not pointing this at anyone in perticular..." I feel the dagger pierce right through me! lol :rolleyes: ). Yes... guilty! ugh.

But anyway...

Do note:
BOTH ways work.
And sometimes... what will work in Javascript enabled browers cannot be written in order to work in disabled Javascript browsers.

Therefore... the necessity to accomplish something over-rides the decision to not accomplish something for the sake of appeasing those who have made a choice to make the development process harder.

(and that's how a lot of concienscious developers become "lazy" in the first place)

Ultimately...
it's Javascript itself that has the capabilities..
it's the developer who maximizes it's capabilities...
and it's the disabled Javascript browser which resists the innovation and creativity of the former two.

So, if Javascript allows me to write it either way... and the browser will interpret it either way... is MY choice in how I elect to write it not as important as that of the person who has already made thier own choice?
(especially since we have yet to hear a "must have" reason for altering/limiting the browser's existing functionality in the first place).

If I told you that you could not use the cruise-control feature on your car because I do not have that feature on my jeep... would you stop using it?

and really... no cruise-control.:( ...
k

[lora_3677]

ANOTHER EDIT: Another annoyance. A new style of ad. It isn't a pop-up, but it overlaps the content on the actual site. You have to wait for it to finally present you with a close button before you can continue on doing what you originally wanted to do. And these are appearing on many official sites, not just porn sites, so there is no good way to avoid them. [/B]

I have to agree that is the latest and greatest type of ad to test my patience. And it's not just these little sites that cater to a select group.. I've had those on amazon and i think yahoo.... totally upsets me..

ok. i had to comment on this, now i'll read the rest and reply at the end. because , i like Khaki, can't let a thread this wonderful go without having my 2 cents worth. hee hee.

[Nevermore]

Sorry about not coming earlier, K, I didn't get the message til just now. Probably due to not having checked. :D

Seeing as how I only just joined the debate, I hope noone minds if I backtrack a little to discuss some ideas mentioned earlier.



I couldn’t find the original quote, but it was all of the stuff about firewalls.

The average home user, according to a big monitoring scheme , is scanned by crackers* roughly every 7 seconds! The big risk, though, isn’t information theft, it is that the cracker would manage to control your machine. They can then use it to launch a DoS attack against any computer they want. If enough computers can be gathered, this would effectively destroy the ‘net.
The other threat is from worms, such as the Opaserve worm. (Commonly called the Brasil worm, after one of it’s variants.) This worm can infect any computer, without you having to do anything, just because it is running an unpatched version of 95/98/Me, and has no firewall blocking access to ports 137 and 139. So you see, firewalls are NOT just being overplayed, they are an important tool.
So where does JavaScript fit into all of this? JavaScript ‘viruses’ normally work in conjunction with other attacks, as people have already mentioned. The idea is to create an unterminated string, which will use up all of the processing power and RAM on the attacked computer, by, say doubling a number over and over again, ad infinitum. Programs, sometimes the antivirus and firewall, wil then crash, and the cracker can attack.
The main JavaScript threat, though, is not from ‘virus’ style behaviour. It is from someone finding a forum on, say, an auction site, which does not filter out the word JavaScript (explanation of why they do, coming up). This allows anyone to write a piece of code, which will then run in the post whenever anyone views it. This will normally be made to redirect the browser to another site, or to display PopUps. The big worry is about it redirecting the user to another site which looks and feels identical, and whcich can then be used to steal credit card details. (You know, the old: sorry, our servers went down, just email them to us @ …).

Now that I hope I have explained all of that, on to the main topic. According to the W3C site, 10% of users surf with JavaScript disabled. Another figure is that approximately 58 million Americans are disabled (and have reported it). To break it down: 2% of people under 22 are disabled, 6% of those from 22-44. Overall, 6% of whites, 12% of blacks and 7% of Hispanics are disabled. This encompasses even very minor disabilities, but you can clearly see that a lot of people are disabled.
The main reasons for disabled people not to use JavaScript are: Cannot use mouse. Some things can be very difficult to use with no mouse, and one of them is JavaScript. Especially those popop ads that aren’t real windows, just div layers. There is no other way of closing those.
The other reason is blindness. Many blind or visually impaired people use the internet, using speaking browsers. These browsers cannot detect and run JavaScript links, only anchor tags, so JavaScript based navigation is useless.
If you want to see how well your site fares for the disabled, download a copy of Lynx. Or get Opera, and in file->preferences (or whatever it is) turn everything useful off.
It isn’t actually hard to make sites disabled friendly. When using JavaScript navigation, just provide other links. Provide <noscript> and <noframes> tags. Put content inside ilayers and iframes, so they have something to use. Put alt text on pictures. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing.

I try not to go on about these problems, although it is quite hard in a JavaScript forum. But no one ever mentions the other problems, which can be more annoying. Again, according to the W3C, more people use a screen resolution of 800*600 than use 1024*768. So why are sites only designed for the MINORITY! This is a much more wide spread problem, as more people have problems with it. It is easy to solve – just use relative values and % for positioning and font sizes, and don’t use <nobreak > or <pre> tags.
More people have 16 bit colour than have 32bit, and more people use analogue modems than broadband. So why are sites so full of high colour pictures when only the top 10% will be able to view it?

I hope I haven’t offended anyone too badly. Sorry if I have.

* Crackers are the nasty ones. Hackers are good people. Don't confuse the terms.

[khaki]

wow...
that's why i invited cijori to the party

(i need to digest some of that... so you are all about to witness a very strange phenomenon... a speechess khaki)

:eek: k

[apezVal]

>(khaki)

"Ultimately...
it's Javascript itself that has the capabilities..
it's the developer who maximizes it's capabilities...
and it's the disabled Javascript browser which resists the innovation and creativity of the former two. "

Well said Khaki and I totally agree, although I am relatively new to javascript and am still learning the basics of the syntax, I can see how the 'creative potential' is manifested and the imagination (or the browser's compiling technology) may by the main limits... along with the hardware and the settings issues.
Here, again, I think its a matter of 'give the people what the people want' (and make some bucks at it as usual).

(What R we talking about....'Energy-Events' at the speed of light!)

[Nevermore]

The problem is who you call 'the people'. If you say that 'the people' is the group with most people in, you can do almost anything. If, however, you choose to count the disabled as people too, you need to add maybe 20 extra words to each page, so that they can use them too.

[havik]

Originally posted by cijori
I hope I haven’t offended anyone too badly. Sorry if I have.

On the contrary, you've help open my eyes even more to the issue. I've always made an effort to make my pages work for all browsers. But I never really took the time to make it work for javascript disabled browsers.

Havik

[jeffmott]

To me... it says...
Don't code in Javascript because some people have chosen to disable it on thier own machinesYou can code in it, but the site should still work if scripting is unavailable. For instance, to make loging in a little easier I'll use JavaScript to initially test the password. But if there is no JavaScript, the server side script will run the same test and return an error if it is incorrect. Some flashy things such rollovers are also ok, because the site is still usable without it.

This isn't just my opinion either. The Web Accessibility Guidelines (written by people who know a lot more about the Web and its happenings than anyone here) also state that a site should be usable without client side scripting.

since IE could have rendered Javascript useless simply by not supporting itI don't mean to go off topic, I just want to make a correction here. JavaScript is one of the additions that made everyone (and almost literally everyone) flock to Netscape. Developers had a new toy to play with and loved it. If Microsoft hadn't ported it to their own browser, they would have been quickly forgotten.

In sum, I see Javascript as a great toolIt is. But the Web is a medium for communication and the ultimate goal is to communicate a message. And if the message is lost for 1 in every 10 people (whatever the reason may be) then this really is an unacceptable number.

There is no reason to code like that. Why not do it like this??

<a href="test.htm" target="_blank" onclick="javascript:window.open('test.htm'); return false;">Exactly! This is a perfect example of a JavaScript solution that is still functional without scripting. If everyone worked like this there would be no problem.

[Nevermore]

(Applause)!!!

Exactly my feeling.

[lora_3677]

It isn’t actually hard to make sites disabled friendly. When using JavaScript navigation, just provide other links. Provide <noscript> and <noframes> tags. Put content inside ilayers and iframes, so they have something to use. Put alt text on pictures. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than nothing.
I did an internship for a state government agency about a year ago and their main concern (because they are a government agency) is accessibility. For that reason, they try to keep their sites very simple in code, so anyone can access it. Every page was tested in IE 5 and Netscape 4 (which is just good practice anyway). I realize that you can't hold peoples hands and you can't make them upgrade, yet they could be in an area where to download the updates would take them 2 days (56K -- rural mid missouri here. ha ha).

Anyway, the webteam used Dreamweaver (which I fell in love with, don't talk me out of it. ha ha) for all their pages and took the time to run the reports (which includes a sweet little accessiblity report) and fix any missing alt tags, etc. (In fact on my personal sites, my alt tags are descriptive and I add funny comments to them (just something to do when I'm bored.))

It was a great experience and I guess it makes me more aware of the circumstances people with disabilities face while surfing the web.

My supervisor at the time said you would be SHOCKED to hear what your page sounds like through a 'page reader'. And, I think there may be a place on the web you can test that, too... not positive...

I try not to go on about these problems, although it is quite hard in a JavaScript forum.


I feel it is very important to try to cater to the largest audience possible if building a site for a private company or public entity. If that means that I can't use all the new bells and whistles, then I guess I won't. Honestly, I also feel that if more problems associated with this would be explained, then it would be understood and the knowledge could be used to develop better technologies to correct the problems. So, please go on about these issues and try to explain what the problems are, so we can begin to correct them when building sites.

I don't think JavaScript is bad, it's original intention was good.. just like every other programming and web development tool, it can be abused.... and most of them have been.

Just my 2 cents worth... sorry if i was a little 'off the thread'.
_________________________________--

Lora_3677

PS I also know that my web development professor wouldn't allow my teams new design for the school homepage because it required javascript, even though we had alternate links to maneuver through the pages... still a little sore about that...

[Nevermore]

Sorry about this, and I don't even know if it is true or not, but apparently Adam's way is no good for people without frames or JS. Sorry, Adam.

Someone find out if that's true...

[havik]

I tested it and it didn't work with javascript disabled. I thought it was an error in my coding. I'll run it again and see what happens.

Havik

[apezVal]

>cijori: "...doubling a number over and over again."
This is I think some sort of use of an elementary math function called the 'Fibonacci series' which has many good abstract co-functions, relations and uses and I am surprised to learn of it as a malicious virus ploy. The numbers form a series such that any string element is a magnitude doubling of the previous pair (which I guess could become variously boolean complex)

...So my question is HOW can a pc user detect such a program on their system subtly doubling code strings?
(Short of having to use the subcription hype SW and learning that there is no one home there if and when you need tech support!)

Also, regarding the frequency of exogenous scans that are of 'cracker' origin. I would like to think that at least some of this is due to local Interrupt Request faults (always a major electrical enineering challenge)... and "idiopathic pseudo-ping phenomena" since no one has super-conducting electronic circuitry feeding their op-systems OR their GPS-locus. But maybe I am all too naive about what the psycho-sociopath and the Blue-meanies need in their pathetic lives and thinking these 'detected and interpreted' exogenous scans are electrical engineering phenomena and little more may just be wishful thinking.

(Re: "There are 10 kinds of people..." LOL; and it's enough to make you want to go 'Octal!")

__ "For all the Detectives down in Texas,...who know exactly what the facts is..." Steve Miller

[Nevermore]

I don't know how it does it, but IE6 and Norton both detect ever lasting equations and close the browser before itdoes damage, With regsrd to your second ploy, there are 1000s of crackers scanning. Each time one of them finds a vulnerable computer, they compromise it and it begins scanning as well. I think the estimate was probably conservative. Incidentally, an easy way to avoid this scanning is to hide behid a proxy server.

[jeffmott]

I tested it and it didn't work with javascript disabledWorks just fine.<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
<title></title>
</head>

<body>

<p><a href="test.htm" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('test.htm'); return false;">click me</a></p>

</body>

[khaki]

oh.. it's always those guys on the other side of the river (jeffmott/NY) who think that they have all the answers!

Just kidding ;) obviously (although you are quite smart to remain on that side of the river... we got enough problems on this side already, without adding more. lol)

But seriously... this thread took forever to get past the rhetoric behind the reasons for disabling javascript in the browser.

It's certainly not definitive, but at least I now know that there is a legit % of people who have no choice other than to disable javascript ... and more importantly I now know why.

10% !!!!
10% !!!!
give that a rest.
The real number is much smaller... but still very important.

But at least I understand that for the majority of that 10% who disable javascript (and then whine about it), the reason for doing so is a bit more clear (and unimportant to me!).
And... in the words of justron "the #1 reason is anal retentive web surfers"
(sorry that i didn't credit you sooner for that one ron ;). funny!)

But ultimately... i thank cijori and Lora (who i will need to confer with a bit more about this) and jeffmott (even though you constanly smoke-me-out and expose me. lol) , and V.V. who got this rolling with the first response (your not anal retentive, are you? ;) ), and everybody else (oops... i should be thanking more people, but... seriously... this post is way too long already) for helping me to become a better (and more professional) web developer.

my best to all of you...
:) k

(Discussions are just so much more enlightening than arguments.)

[pyro]

At the risk of brining up some old stuff... (how the heck did I miss this thread for so long?)

Originally posted by khaki
So...
where are all the peole who like to write that Javascript solutions will fail for 1 of every 10 users with javascrip not enabled?!The only time you will hear me saying that is when I see coding that can very easily be made to work without javascript. What is the point in writing code that can easily work for both those with and those without javascript, for only those with javascript? Things such as the example that AdamBrill and now jeffmott have shown. Why code it with no page in the href as a backup? Why not make it work for both?

Originally posted by cijori
Sorry about this, and I don't even know if it is true or not, but apparently Adam's way is no good for people without frames or JS.huh?? :confused:

Originally posted by khaki
10% !!!!
give that a rest.The latest stats from thecounter.com (http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/March/javas.php) say 9%...

[havik]

Originally posted by jeffmott
Works just fine.<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Script-Type" content="text/javascript">
<title></title>
</head>

<body>

<p><a href="test.htm" target="_blank" onclick="window.open('test.htm'); return false;">click me</a></p>

</body>

Well I did say I'd run it again. Sorry if I was slow. :)

HAvik

[Nevermore]

I shall have to keep that site in mind - I was using http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[pyro]

W3Schools takes their stats from thecounter.com. So, I just go there in the first place, and then I can get the lastest stats. (W3Schools latest is January...)

[khaki]

i know...
i've seen the stats.

my point is based on the analysis aspect of it.

i work with stats all day.
some stats tell stories...
and some stats decieve.

the key comes in analysing the stats to
understand what they are truly saying.

the question is:
10% (9... whatever) what?
that's all.

[lora_3677]

and we are all better people because of the thread. hee hee. no seriously, i think i've been enlightened. <-- i'm not joking so don't be mean... :)

[AdamBrill]

Originally posted by khaki
But at least I understand that for the majority of that 10% who disable javascript (and then whine about it)...
I don't think that is fair to the people that turn it off. Out of everyone that I have ever talked to that disabled javascript, I haven't heard one complaining. Just thought I would point it out... ;)

cijori - How is it going to help to have javascript max out the processing??? For one thing, IE won't allow it. For another, what exactly do you think you could do if you could do it? I guess I don't see that as a vulnerability and am wondering why you do...

[Nevermore]

I know IE won't allow it - I mentioned that earlier. The idea is to use up all of the system memory and processor cache, so that resource heavy programs like AV and sometimes firewalls, crash.

[Nicodemas]

Hmm... well, I can almost, sorta-kinda speak from experience on at least one of these issues, as I am a webmaster for a government body and we have adhere to Section 508 standards.

If you want, check out www.section508.gov to get a good grasp of the deal with javascript and disabled users, Khaki.
What it boils down to can be summed(sp?) up to this: some browsers utilizing special software/hardware which interprets, or navigates web pages for the disabled user cannot adequately describe or interact with a javascript so that it is made to function/render properly.

A lot of buzz was shot through the internet community about the "danger" of cookies and how internet "hackers" could gain insight into your personal data with it. Fiction for the most part of course, unless a user unwittingly allowed it to happen. A lot of people are simply paranoid of the internet and javascript (or any special code for that matter) due, in part, to these possible factors that I have thought of:

1. The internet is a vast scape of information, capable of performing all sorts of functions. Perhaps the infinite environment, and the plethora of websites and the overwhelming amount of information that is available on the internet intimidates people.

2. Javascript/Any code - Computer programming, or any scripting for that matter is arcane to those outside the loop, and that sort of hinges on the fear of the unknown. I think that can intimidate as well.

so anyway, I rambled I think... just my two cents.

[azz]

MAN! Thanks for a great thread, Kay (and others)

Just thought I'd add my two cents.

One of the first things I learnt when embarking on the journey to web-designerhood was to identify my audience before I even open TextPad. This action should inform the decision as to whether to include workarounds for a non-javascript audience. The audience in a corporate building would be very different (in terms of technology) to the user in an internet cafe.

So for argument's sake, as I work for a magazine catering to travellers in the UK and beyond, I'd say 90% of my audience are MS & IE based as those are the machines they'll be using (internet cafes etc not office buildings)

They'll soon tell me if I've got it wrong (Believe me, they would!!!! :) )

I guess it boils down to this, I wouldn't bother to workaround if I knew that all of the time those workarounds wouldnot be used. Why design a site for those behind a paranoid security system, when nobody from that sector would need to look at the site anyway.

Hmmm .. and an quick aside that's just popped into my head ... how the blooming heck are you supposed to design a reasonably looking and functioning site without javascript?

Thanks again for a great thread, guys

Azz

[jeffmott]

how the blooming heck are you supposed to design a reasonably looking [site]Artistic creativity (seriously). It doesn't have to move or change to look good.and functioning site without javascript?Server side programming. No reliance on each individual client, so no problems.

[IxxI]

Does anybody know where you can either get or test pages on disabled browsers (as it would be useful to know what people will see/hear etc. when viewing your site). And also in reponse to azz's comment. I used to think that, but although javascript is useful in certain situations it is not the be all and end all of decent web sites, and should be viewed as such - a tool not THE tool. Just try writing a site using css, and you can make a lovely looking one without the need for any javascript whatsoever. Again just my feelings, and no offence meant Azz (in case you take any!).

IxxI

[DaveSW]

Ok: My three cents lol.

http://www.htmlgoodies.com/tutors/useragent.html has some basic info on designing.

http://www.webaim.org/simulations/screenreader is a simulation - boy is it annoying!!

Suppliers include (time limited demo on each)
http://www.hj.com/ (site in tables lol)
http://www.gwmicro.com (Site in frames lol)

Personally I've never used Javascript on a site, except for forms, which have now moved to php. Too many javascript effects are just aesthetics - mouse trails, image rotation etc. For a site I visit once in my life, I don't care whether the images change or not!!

Dave

PS http://www.wata.org/pubs/bulletins/99sum.htm has a good article

[IxxI]

Thanks for the links Dave. I haven't tried them yet, but will as soon as I get time...

IxxI

[lora_3677]

Those are some really informative, good links, Dave!! Thanks!

[lora_3677]

Cute signature [xx]!!

[DaveSW]

I spent 10 mins researching on Yahoo to find all those lol!! :o

dave

[jeffmott]

Oh no, not Joe Burns again. I wonder if he's actually managed to get at least one article right yet. Hmmm, nope.
Joe Burns
The second rule was to write your HTML code in a traditional fashion. That means flags in capital letters and attributes lower-case and in double quotes. Again, Like so:
<FONT SIZE="+3">Hello There</FONT>What!?! This is just wrong. It makes no difference whatsoever. What he should have done is told people not to use the font tag (yes tag, why is he still calling them flags?)?Joe Burns
If style sheets are used, use the style sheet command right on the page rather than using an external CSS page.This is the complete opposite of what the W3C recommends. Style sheets are much better kept outside the HTML document.

[khaki]

oh boy...

the last time that i mentioned the html goodeys(;) ) website and the name...
(well... i won't mention that again) i found it necessary to post this:

I have bannished the link from my bookmarks.
I'll also burn the actual book once it gets dark.
I'll never use the words "HTML" and "Goodies" in the same sentence again.
I'll dis-own all friends with the name of "Joe" (or "Burns").

Yikes!
You guys killed me!
The guy taught me all wrong from the beginning?!

No wonder I need a forum like this!
(wrong khaki, wrong! LOL!)

re-learning everything....
;) k

[lora_3677]

khaki you are crazy....

i've been looking for a site to let me hear what my page sounded like through a reader... the simulator one 'sounds' (not literally yet, but eventually) like it may work. but you have to download somethng and right now i'm too lazy to put the initiative into that. ha ha.

MAN! I am falling asleep today.

[DaveSW]

to actually hear your own sites i think you need the 2 supplier's sites. They have time limited demos which for some reason u get 30 mins listening and then u have to reboot for another 30 mins listening and so on!!
Any information contained in any external sites are not necessarily my views and therefore cannot be guaranteed to be correct!!!!!!!! :p
If you find him that offensive - write your own - and we'll all link to yours instead!!!!!

Dave

[IxxI]

Originally posted by lora_3677
Cute signature [xx]!!

If that was to me I thank you, if not I'll go and hide in shame.

IxxI