Do viewers have JavaScript?

[Mason A. Clark]

I am making a page that will depend on JavaScript.
Is this a problem: the viewers' browser not
running JavaScript?

I did a quick survey of the top of one list of
Top 500 web sites in popularity -- my javascript
turned off. Almost no problem in simply viewing
the pages but I did *not* test any dynamics.

JavaScript was used for some purpose on almost
all the pages. Only two out of thirty explicitly
demanded that javascript be turned on.

QUESTION: Am I running any risk with a page that
*depends* on javascript for informative pop-up
windows?

Mason C

[me]

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42******** **************@ per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

me wrote:

<NOSCRIPT>Thi s will not work without JavaScript enabled. Please enable
JavaScript, thank you!</NOSCRIPT>

If you regularly surfed with JS disabled, do you realise how irritating
that would get? Why should a user adjust their browser settings to
match yours in any way whatsoever? Also, noscript is intended to
provide suitable alternate content for users without JS, not point out
their limitiations.

That example is just as bad as:

<img ... alt="Please turn on images.">

<noframes>
<p>Your browser does not support frames, please upgrade to IE 5.</p>
</noframes>

--
Lachlan Hunt

I find it very amusing that on your about page
http://lachy.id.au/about/aboutme you list www.thefarmshed.com.au as a site
that you "completely redesigned to be standards compliant" (though you do
say you're no longer involved with the site).

Not only does the Farmshed site use a very annoying JavaScript popup window
(on every page) without toolbars or buttons it also uses a decidedly non
fluid table based layout. There's also a proprietary tag for an IE Favicon.
How frustrated you must be, you have my sympathies. I also found some errors
on the Farmshed site too.
Signed,
me

PS: Your site doesn't degrade in IE6, although it does make an attempt to do
so when it first loads. :-(

[Michael Hamm]

Yesterday, ph*******@treef ic.com <ph*******@tree fic.com> wrote, in part:

look up <NOSCRIPT> if you don't know about it. I have this:

<noscript>
<link rel="stylesheet " type="text/css" src="noscript.c ss">
</noscript>

in the header, which allows me to display:none the bits of the page
that rely on scripts. Note that this NOT legitimate HTML but either
works or is ignored by all the browsers that I've seen. (Any comments
anyone?)

I'd say it's better to use the script to write itself instead of relying
no-script browsers' using CSS.

In one page, I have something like

<style type="text/css">div{displa y:none}</style>
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
function n(){document.ge tElementsByTagN ame("style")[0].disabled=true; };
document.write( '<a href="#n" id="n" onclick="n()">S ee [foo].<\/a>');
//--></script>

Of course, what I have is no solution if it's essential that [foo] be
hidden until the user wants to see it. After all, it won't work in a no-
script browser, nor in a no-style browser, and it totally fails in a
no-script, yes-style browser. It's no solution, except that this page has
a readership of eight, all of whom are in contact with me. But I think
it's cleaner than your idea. And my idea *will* be a solution for some
desired results (just not for mine: hiding things on a page so the user
can display them at will).

Michael Hamm
AM, Math, Wash. U. St. Louis
ms****@math.wus tl.edu Fine print:
http://math.wustl.edu/~msh210/ ... legal.html

[Stan Brown]

"me" wrote in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html:

Do you think I will adjust my opinion to suit you in any way whatsoever?

"There are none so blind as thos who _will_ not see."

"You can lead a Usnetter to knowledge, but you cannot make him
think."

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

[me]

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...
[snip]

After reviewing your last 15 posts I can see only two that I could in anyway
interpret as slightly helpful. If you had knowledge to share or even
something interesting to say I might listen next time. Instead of offering
criticisms why not try helping someone? If you did help someone sometime you
might be able to justify your presence here.
Signed,
me

[Harlan Messinger]

me wrote:

"Lachlan Hunt" <sp***********@ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42******** **************@ per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au ...

Why should a user adjust their browser settings to
match yours in any way whatsoever?

Do you think I will adjust my opinion to suit you in any way whatsoever?

I tend to have greater respect for people who adjust their opinions when
presented with new perspectives that should provide the motivation for
doing so, and less respect for people whose opinions are fixed because,
in their view, "they're *my* opinions, dammit, and I'm not changin' them
for you or any person alive--and the facts are besides the point".

[me]

"Harlan Messinger" <hm************ *******@comcast .net> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...
[snip]

I tend to have greater respect for people who adjust their opinions when
presented with new perspectives that should provide the motivation for
doing so, and less respect for people whose opinions are fixed because,
in their view, "they're *my* opinions, dammit, and I'm not changin' them
for you or any person alive--and the facts are besides the point".

Your respect has no bearing on the expression of my opinion. If someone
offers me compelling real world perspectives I may consider them, or I may
not, either way we are entitled to our opinions.
Signed,
me

[Peter1968]

"me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote in message
news:11******** *****@corp.supe rnews.com...

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...
[snip]

After reviewing your last 15 posts I can see only two that I could in anyway interpret as slightly helpful. If you had knowledge to share or even
something interesting to say I might listen next time. Instead of offering
criticisms why not try helping someone? If you did help someone sometime you might be able to justify your presence here.
Signed,
me

The regular's stock answer to this assertion is that c.i.w.a.h is not a tech
support forum.

This NG is a discussion group for HTML as it pertains to authoring for the
WWW, though one wonders how many stones are left unturned discussing
something that hasn't changed in any great way since 1997.

[me]

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsens ebigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:04******** ***********@new s-server.bigpond. net.au...

"me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote in message
news:11******** *****@corp.supe rnews.com...

"Stan Brown" <th************ @fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:39******** *****@individua l.net...
[snip]

After reviewing your last 15 posts I can see only two that I could in anyway

interpret as slightly helpful. If you had knowledge to share or even
something interesting to say I might listen next time. Instead of offering criticisms why not try helping someone? If you did help someone sometime

you

might be able to justify your presence here.
Signed,
me

The regular's stock answer to this assertion is that c.i.w.a.h is not a

tech support forum.

This NG is a discussion group for HTML as it pertains to authoring for the
WWW, though one wonders how many stones are left unturned discussing
something that hasn't changed in any great way since 1997.

Then why don't regulars suggest a more appropriate NG to those who post
questions? IMO some (many?) of the posts offer only ridicule. If the
regulars don't want to answer tech support questions then why do they bother
to respond at all?
Signed,
me

[Stewart Gordon]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

I am making a page that will depend on JavaScript.
Is this a problem: the viewers' browser not
running JavaScript? <snip> QUESTION: Am I running any risk with a page that
*depends* on javascript for informative pop-up
windows?

Yes.

Does your popup appear automatically, or in response to the user
following a link? If the former, you already have a problem, not only
for people who disable JS, but also for those who have popup blockers.
In this case, you need to redesign your site to avoid these.

For popups displayed by a link, make sure you have a valid non-JS URL in
the href, so that JS-disabled browsers can access the page.

See also

http://webtips.dan.info/graceful.html

Stewart.

--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

[Mason A. Clark]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 08:49:19 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THIS ix.netcom.comQQ Q> wrote:

I am making a page that will depend on JavaScript.
Is this a problem: the viewers' browser not
running JavaScript?

I did a quick survey of the top of one list of
Top 500 web sites in popularity -- my javascript
turned off. Almost no problem in simply viewing
the pages but I did *not* test any dynamics.

JavaScript was used for some purpose on almost
all the pages. Only two out of thirty explicitly
demanded that javascript be turned on.

QUESTION: Am I running any risk with a page that
*depends* on javascript for informative pop-up
windows?

Mason C

I really appreciate the responses to my question.
My pop-ups are not automatic and serve a useful
purposes. However, the javascript problem has
caused me to switch to simple "<a href.." windows with
a return link at the bottom. Very simple, BUT

Now I have a new problem which I'll post in a
separate thread: how to return to different
image maps from the same page....how to know
*from whence* a page was linked.... whatever...

Thanks again for the instructive responses.

Mason C and fun to see a thread degenerate :-)