how to set browser window attributes in this HTML code?

[Steve]

Hi There,

Prob a simple answer to this (I hope) but I can't quite work it out yet...

I have this in a page:

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77" href="map.html" target="_blank"
alt="Link to map">
</map>

I want the page "map.html" to load into a new browser window, and set the
new browser window to be the size required to just fit the map, and turn off
the unwanted toolbars. (I just want a simple window to show the map in)

How can I do this please?

Thanks.

[Steve]

Ok, following up my own post....

I found a script that is almost perfect thus:

<SCRIPT language="javascript">
function createWindow(cUrl,cName,cFeatures) {
var xWin = window.open(cUrl,cName,cFeatures)
}
</SCRIPT>

and call it thus:

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77"
href="javascript:createWindow('map.html','window2' ,'width=678,height=435')"
alt="Link to map">
</map>

Now I have one more requirement...

How can I offset the new browser from the top left corner of the screen,
ideally centering on the screen?

thanks

[me]

"Steve" <no****@spambot.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:d1*********@sparta.btinternet.com...

Ok, following up my own post....

I found a script that is almost perfect thus:

<SCRIPT language="javascript">
function createWindow(cUrl,cName,cFeatures) {
var xWin = window.open(cUrl,cName,cFeatures)
}
</SCRIPT>

and call it thus:

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77"
href="javascript:createWindow('map.html','window2' ,'width=678,height=435')" alt="Link to map">
</map>

Now I have one more requirement...

How can I offset the new browser from the top left corner of the screen,
ideally centering on the screen?

thanks

I'm curious to know if there's a way to do that myself. Currently I just
have the window open in the upper left hand corner with this: left=0,top=0
Have you asked this question in comp.lang.javascript?
Good Luck,
me

[Stan Brown]

"Steve" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77" href="map.html" target="_blank"
alt="Link to map">
"Link to" is kind of silly alt text for a map. Why not "Map of
museum" or whatever.
I want the page "map.html" to load into a new browser window, and set the
new browser window to be the size required to just fit the map, and turn off
the unwanted toolbars. ... How can I do this please?

You can't. Don't waste your time trying to do it -- no one will
thank you and some will curse your name. Even opening a separate
window is a highly questionable action, though the code you show
should do it.

(*)You can set up Javascript to do it, but unless you're careful
the result will be thayt sensible people who have Javascript turned
off won't be able to view your content at all.

--

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

[Stan Brown]

"Steve" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

<SCRIPT language="javascript">
function createWindow(cUrl,cName,cFeatures) {
var xWin = window.open(cUrl,cName,cFeatures)
}
</SCRIPT>

Doesn't work in my browser. No script does.

Why go out of your way to take somethjing that works for 100% of
people and change it to something that works for less than 100%?
It's not sensible.

(If you really insist on writing a script, please take it to a
script newsgroup. We're about HTML here and the above isn't HTML.)

--

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

[c.thornquist]

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

"Steve" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77" href="map.html" target="_blank"
alt="Link to map">
"Link to" is kind of silly alt text for a map. Why not "Map of
museum" or whatever.

I want the page "map.html" to load into a new browser window, and set the
new browser window to be the size required to just fit the map, and turn
off
the unwanted toolbars. ... How can I do this please?

You can't. Don't waste your time trying to do it -- no one will
thank you and some will curse your name. Even opening a separate
window is a highly questionable action, though the code you show
should do it.

Why can't he do that? And, why shouldn't he do that? How large is your map?
(*)You can set up Javascript to do it, but unless you're careful
the result will be thayt sensible people who have Javascript turned
off won't be able to view your content at all.

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
Carla

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Why do you think that's of interest? Properly-designed web pages are
still functional without whatever enhancements js might be used to
provide. You don't need statistics to tell you that.

More to the point, how are you going to measure how many of those who
*didn't* know how to turn js off, get annoyed by what web authors do
with it?

Not forgetting of course that some of your most important visitors
don't support js. And they'll calmly index the misguided responses,
such as:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22yo...o+view+this%22

- and happily show that to your potential readers.

[Stan Brown]

"c.thornquist" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Suppose it's 1%. (The real number is probably larger, especially
since it's not even available in some browsers.)

What's 1% of 600 million? Do you really want to exclude that many
people from your site?

--

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

[me]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
Why do you think that's of interest?

Because the poster she answered claims that in his opinion "sensible people
will have JS turned off". Therfore she and I want to know how many people
(sensible or not) have JS turned off.
Properly-designed web pages are
still functional without whatever enhancements js might be used to
provide.
Still there is no reason to condemn the use of JS if the OP wishes too.
You don't need statistics to tell you that.
Maybe not but it might help to have some facts to refure illogical
assumptions based on bupkiss.
More to the point, how are you going to measure how many of those who
*didn't* know how to turn js off, get annoyed by what web authors do
with it?
This is paranoia based on bupkiss.
Not forgetting of course that some of your most important visitors
don't support js.
Cite proof please.
And they'll calmly index the misguided responses,
such as:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22yo...o+view+this%22

- and happily show that to your potential readers.

You're assuming that the OP or Carla will post a superfluous warning. Many
of the most popular sites use JS. If JS were the bane to users that you
purport it to be then it would have disappeared long ago.
Signed,
me

[Peter1968]

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02...

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are more
than you think as well.

[me]

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:iB****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02...

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are

more than you think as well.

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

[me]

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

"c.thornquist" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
Suppose it's 1%. (The real number is probably larger, especially
since it's not even available in some browsers.)

But we do know that it's available in IE which happens to be the most widely
used browser.
What's 1% of 600 million? Do you really want to exclude that many
people from your site?

They may not be excluded. If they are then they surely chose to not use JS
voluntarily and they may likely have a browser already installed that by
default uses JS which they could use if they wished too.
Signed,
me

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are

more

than you think as well.

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

Approximately 5.7 percent (possibly as high as 8%) and growing daily.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1050

The more people learn about a browser that can disable all (or at least the
vast majority) of the irritating things they encounter on the www, the more
they want to try it...

If MSIE wants to stay competitive, a future release of MSIE will have options
to turn off script pieces, too. They block popups by default now. They're
just a little slow on the uptake. Eventually, they'll have these features,
too.

--
--
~kaeli~
Hey, if you got it flaunt it! If you don't, stare at
someone who does. Just don't lick the TV screen, it leaves
streaks.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[c.thornquist]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:iB****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02...

>
>
> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are

more

than you think as well.

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

JavaScript StatsSat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0
Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

From thecounter.com. It's for January 2005.

Another stat of interest to me is how many of the most popular sites on the
net use JavaScript. That's probably a better indicator of its
appropriateness (for the designer/builder considering using it) than is the
stat above.

Carla

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are more

than you think as well.

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

Approximately 5.7 percent (possibly as high as 8%) and growing daily.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1050

I disagree. IMO the author is likely (surely?) biased against IE. In any
event having the option to turn off JS is not a guarantee that users will do
so. In fact we do know for certain that if they voluntairly turn off JS then
they also know how to turn it on when they want/need to.
The more people learn about a browser that can disable all (or at least the vast majority) of the irritating things they encounter on the www, the more they want to try it...
Possibly but is the OP's use of JS annoying his visitors? Cite proof please.
If MSIE wants to stay competitive, a future release of MSIE will have options to turn off script pieces, too.
Maybe but you're making an assumption based on your predicition of the
future behavior of MS. All MS really has to do to stay competitive is keep
selling Windows with IE.
They block popups by default now.
I see no problem with this.
They're
just a little slow on the uptake. Eventually, they'll have these features,
too.

Possibly, but you're making predictions again which may not be reliable
unless your name is Nostradamus.

Are you of the same ilk as some others here who are militantly opposed to
JS?
Signed,
me

[me]

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:YkY%d.95740$Ze3.91510@attbi_s51...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:iB****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02...
>
>
> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>

More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are more

than you think as well.

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

JavaScript StatsSat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0
Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

From thecounter.com. It's for January 2005.

Another stat of interest to me is how many of the most popular sites on

the net use JavaScript. That's probably a better indicator of its
appropriateness (for the designer/builder considering using it) than is the stat above.

Carla

Fascinating, I quit visiting that site when they started required a
subscription, I assume you subscribe?
Signed,
me

[Peter1968]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

Some = more than one.

Signed,
me too.

[me]

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Ti****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

Some = more than one.

Signed,
me too.

Not exactly what I had in mind but fair enough.
Signed,
me

[c.thornquist]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:YkY%d.95740$Ze3.91510@attbi_s51...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

> "Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:iB****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02...
>> >
>> >
>> > What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>> >
>>
>> More than you think. Some of us use browsers where you can selectively
>> disable the more annoying aspects of Javascript, and their numbers are
> more
>> than you think as well.
>
> Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
> Signed,
> me
>
>

JavaScript StatsSat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0
Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

From thecounter.com. It's for January 2005.

Another stat of interest to me is how many of the most popular sites on

the

net use JavaScript. That's probably a better indicator of its
appropriateness (for the designer/builder considering using it) than is

the

stat above.

Carla

Fascinating, I quit visiting that site when they started required a
subscription, I assume you subscribe?
Signed,
me

They do require a subscription, but not for their Global Stats link (see top
of their page, I think).

Carla

[c.thornquist]

"Steve" <no****@spambot.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:d1*********@sparta.btinternet.com...

Ok, following up my own post....

I found a script that is almost perfect thus:

<SCRIPT language="javascript">
function createWindow(cUrl,cName,cFeatures) {
var xWin = window.open(cUrl,cName,cFeatures)
}
</SCRIPT>

and call it thus:

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="43,68,52,77"
href="javascript:createWindow('map.html','window2' ,'width=678,height=435')"
alt="Link to map">
</map>

Now I have one more requirement...

How can I offset the new browser from the top left corner of the screen,
ideally centering on the screen?

thanks

I can't write javascript, so I use scripts I find on the net. This is what I
use many sites I build (here it's an image link to a pop-up). Perhaps it's
messy? I wouldn't know, but it seems to work in IE, FF & Opera:

<a href="javascript:void
window.open('DI_pop1.htm','picture','scrollbars=ye s,menubar=no,resizable=yes,height=410,width=450,to p=25,left=10').focus()"><img
src="/images/DI_pop1_thumb.jpg" width="75" height="75" alt="Dick Idol
Gallery" border="0" align="middle"></a>

You can see it here on a site I'm building:
http://www.dandefurniture.com/DE_Dick_Idol.html

Carla

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

Approximately 5.7 percent (possibly as high as 8%) and growing daily.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1050
I disagree.

They must ALL be biased. These people all sure hate MSIE to post skewed
statistics.
http://news.com.com/Firefox+cutting+...3-5463513.html
http://www.informationweek.com/story...leID=159902316 http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70446/fi...n-germany.html http://eyeonit.itmanagersjournal.com.../03/21/1922227 http://www.computerworld.com/develop...100095,00.html http://www.vnunet.com/news/1161584

If you'd like to disagree with all these sites, post proof, not tinfoil-hat
allegations about bias.
In any
event having the option to turn off JS is not a guarantee that users will do
so.
Not just the option to turn off JS, but to disable portions of it.
I can simply disable window resizing. Which I do. I also have it so that you
can't write to my status bar.
Which has nothing at all to do with the point I replied to -- that people are
moving away from MSIE.
In fact we do know for certain that if they voluntairly turn off JS then
they also know how to turn it on when they want/need to.
Very true.
But very beside the point.
The point was only that the options are nice to have, which is one of the
reasons other browsers are getting a larger market share.

The more people learn about a browser that can disable all (or at least the

vast majority) of the irritating things they encounter on the www, the

more

they want to try it...

Possibly but is the OP's use of JS annoying his visitors? Cite proof please.

I didn't say it was, now did I?
Which again has nothing at all to do with what I replied to. You asked how
many people are not using MSIE. I gave you the most recent estimates and a
possible reason (one of many, including security problems, viruses, and other
things) for the changing numbers. That is all.

If MSIE wants to stay competitive, a future release of MSIE will have options

to turn off script pieces, too.

Maybe but you're making an assumption

No assumption was made. That was called an opinion.

They block popups by default now.
I see no problem with this.

You probably don't code things that rely on popup windows, then.
Go over into the javascript (comp.lang.javascript) group and see the problems
blockers cause for apps that really needed them. I hate that people now need
blockers (myself included) because they break cool applications like date
pickers by default. And I can't just allow ONE popup. I have to enable them
for the whole site.
Blockers are getting better at distinguishing requested popups from
unrequested ones, though, thank goodness. As a user, that makes me happy.
Popups have a definite place in some contexts.

Are you of the same ilk as some others here who are militantly opposed to
JS?

Did I say something that implied I was?
Go over to comp.lang.javascript some time.

--
--
~kaeli~
Have you forgotten about Jesus? Isn't it about time you did?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed kaeli
<ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> writing in
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com:

I hate that people now need
blockers (myself included) because they break cool applications like
date pickers by default. And I can't just allow ONE popup. I have to
enable them for the whole site.

That's one of the reasons I've been using Opera for so long. You can block
all pop-ups, or only unrequested pop-ups. If you click on a link that you
KNOW is going to pop-up or open in a new window, no problem, it opens.

You can disable Flash, animated gifs, sounds, etc., all on the fly. And
talk about skins! I love that browser.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writing in
news:iTZ%d.1584$pa.1494@attbi_s02:

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

From thecounter.com. It's for January 2005.

Another stat of interest to me is how many of the most popular sites
on the net use JavaScript. That's probably a better indicator of its
appropriateness (for the designer/builder considering using it) than
is the stat above.

Carla

Fascinating, I quit visiting that site when they started required a
subscription, I assume you subscribe?
Signed,
me

They do require a subscription, but not for their Global Stats link
(see top of their page, I think).

Well, apparently, they now require a subscription for everything. They're
requiring a username and password on the start page. Very annoying, and
IMHO, stupid, because how can you sign up for a username and password if
you can't get to the site at all?

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

Approximately 5.7 percent (possibly as high as 8%) and growing daily.
http://www.cooltechzone.com/index.ph...k=view&id=1050
I disagree.

They must ALL be biased. These people all sure hate MSIE to post skewed
statistics.
http://news.com.com/Firefox+cutting+...3-5463513.html
http://www.informationweek.com/story...leID=159902316

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70446/fi...n-germany.html http://eyeonit.itmanagersjournal.com.../03/21/1922227

http://www.computerworld.com/develop...100095,00.html

http://www.vnunet.com/news/1161584

If you'd like to disagree with all these sites, post proof, not tinfoil-hat allegations about bias.
Why should I discuss anything with someone who can only express themselves
by ridiculing me? You apear unable to tolerate any difference of opinion. If
you have lost your objectivity and can no longer control your emotions them
please consider taking a break. Incidentially IE is still the most widely
used browser by anyone's stats not that has anything to do with the OP's
desire to use JS for an image map or how many people have JS enabled in
their browser.
In any
event having the option to turn off JS is not a guarantee that users will do so.

Not just the option to turn off JS, but to disable portions of it.
I can simply disable window resizing. Which I do. I also have it so that

you can't write to my status bar.
How delightful for you. But as a site owner I will still control those
things in IE on Win. In any event what does that have to do with your
apparent militant bias against JS?
Which has nothing at all to do with the point I replied to
Then you had no reason to make that statement.
-- that people are
moving away from MSIE.
Then you must be thrilled. I think the numbers only show some people
shifting from one IE competitor to another.

In fact we do know for certain that if they voluntairly turn off JS then
they also know how to turn it on when they want/need to.

Very true.
But very beside the point.
The point was only that the options are nice to have, which is one of the
reasons other browsers are getting a larger market share.

I have a different idea, see above (or see below for that matter).

The more people learn about a browser that can disable all (or at least

the

vast majority) of the irritating things they encounter on the www, the

more

they want to try it...

Possibly but is the OP's use of JS annoying his visitors? Cite proof please.
I didn't say it was, now did I?
Which again has nothing at all to do with what I replied to. You asked how
many people are not using MSIE.
No I did not, please get your facts straight. I and c.thornquist asked how
many users have JS turned off. She cited stats at thecounter.com that show
98% of all users have JS enabled. I suppose you are somwhere in the 2% part.
I gave you the most recent estimates and a
possible reason (one of many, including security problems, viruses, and other things) for the changing numbers. That is all.
If another browser becomes dominant Ii see no reason why it won't be the
prime target of viruses, security problems etc etc etc.
If MSIE wants to stay competitive, a future release of MSIE will have

options

to turn off script pieces, too.

Maybe but you're making an assumption

No assumption was made. That was called an opinion.

I'll ammend that to prediction.

They block popups by default now.

I see no problem with this.

You probably don't code things that rely on popup windows, then.

No but I do have links that use JS to open a new chromeless window when the
user clicks on them.
Go over into the javascript (comp.lang.javascript) group and see the problems blockers cause for apps that really needed them. I hate that people now need blockers (myself included) because they break cool applications like date
pickers by default. And I can't just allow ONE popup. I have to enable them for the whole site.
I don't need/use a popup blocker (gasps). I don't feel I see enough popups
to need one (more gasps). Are you sure your system isn't infected with
something? If so may I suggest Spybot or AdAware.
Blockers are getting better at distinguishing requested popups from
unrequested ones, though, thank goodness. As a user, that makes me happy.
Popups have a definite place in some contexts.
Personally I don't like automatic popups, they're usually just annoying ads.
But it is evident from your statement that you know how and when to disable
or re-enable JS, based on that I see no reason why you should condemn IE or
JS.

Are you of the same ilk as some others here who are militantly opposed to JS?

Did I say something that implied I was?

I'm not sure what you're on about.
Go over to comp.lang.javascript some time.

I've heard enough from you right here thank you very much.
Signed,
me

[c.thornquist]

"Adrienne" <ar********@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xn****************************@207.115.63.158 ...

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "c.thornquist"
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writing in
news:iTZ%d.1584$pa.1494@attbi_s02:

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

From thecounter.com. It's for January 2005.

Another stat of interest to me is how many of the most popular sites
on the net use JavaScript. That's probably a better indicator of its
appropriateness (for the designer/builder considering using it) than
is the stat above.

Carla

Fascinating, I quit visiting that site when they started required a
subscription, I assume you subscribe?
Signed,
me

They do require a subscription, but not for their Global Stats link
(see top of their page, I think).

Well, apparently, they now require a subscription for everything. They're
requiring a username and password on the start page. Very annoying, and
IMHO, stupid, because how can you sign up for a username and password if
you can't get to the site at all?

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Adrienne,

Try again by clicking on the Global Stats link. It apears you will get
nowhere on that first page, but some links are open.

Carla

[Joel Shepherd]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote

Not just the option to turn off JS, but to disable portions of it.
I can simply disable window resizing. Which I do. I also have it so that
you can't write to my status bar.

How delightful for you. But as a site owner I will still control those
things in IE on Win.

No. You won't. You don't. You haven't been able to for years.

--
Joel.

[Steve]

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Ti****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
Signed,
me

Some = more than one.

Signed,
me too.

Not exactly what I had in mind but fair enough.
Signed,
me

Actually I would have said the above definition was a gramatical equivilent
for 'some'.

hey ho...

[Steve]

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1t_%d.10246$fn3.9628@attbi_s01...

I can't write javascript, so I use scripts I find on the net. This is what I use many sites I build (here it's an image link to a pop-up). Perhaps it's
messy? I wouldn't know, but it seems to work in IE, FF & Opera:

<a href="javascript:void
window.open('DI_pop1.htm','picture','scrollbars=ye s,menubar=no,resizable=yes
,height=410,width=450,top=25,left=10').focus()"><i mg src="/images/DI_pop1_thumb.jpg" width="75" height="75" alt="Dick Idol
Gallery" border="0" align="middle"></a>

You can see it here on a site I'm building:
http://www.dandefurniture.com/DE_Dick_Idol.html

Carla

Thanks Carla, I'll play with that one.

Just as an aside, for the many respondants, in my OP I was actually asking
for a HTML answer. I carried on searching, which I had done before posting,
and kinda realised it was unlikely there was an HTML method, hence found
suitable small JS option.
The site I'm building has no JS till now, I try to keep it to a minimum, but
am OK with having JS on a site.
I too abhor those annoying auto pop-ups, though am happier with the
click-to-launch ones.

I take in all whats said, with thanks. All opinions count, even if a trifle
'focused'...

Steve

[me]

"Steve" <no****@spambot.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:d1**********@hercules.btinternet.com...

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1t_%d.10246$fn3.9628@attbi_s01...

I can't write javascript, so I use scripts I find on the net. This is what

I

use many sites I build (here it's an image link to a pop-up). Perhaps

it's messy? I wouldn't know, but it seems to work in IE, FF & Opera:

<a href="javascript:void

window.open('DI_pop1.htm','picture','scrollbars=ye s,menubar=no,resizable=yes ,height=410,width=450,top=25,left=10').focus()"><i mg

src="/images/DI_pop1_thumb.jpg" width="75" height="75" alt="Dick Idol
Gallery" border="0" align="middle"></a>

You can see it here on a site I'm building:
http://www.dandefurniture.com/DE_Dick_Idol.html

Carla
Thanks Carla, I'll play with that one.

Just as an aside, for the many respondants, in my OP I was actually asking
for a HTML answer. I carried on searching, which I had done before

posting, and kinda realised it was unlikely there was an HTML method, hence found
suitable small JS option.
The site I'm building has no JS till now, I try to keep it to a minimum, but am OK with having JS on a site.
I too abhor those annoying auto pop-ups, though am happier with the
click-to-launch ones.

I take in all whats said, with thanks. All opinions count, even if a trifle 'focused'...

Steve

"Focused", that's quite amusing, IMO it's a bit too gentle of a
characterization. ;-)
Signed,
me

[me]

"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:jo****************************@news1.west.ear thlink.net...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote

Not just the option to turn off JS, but to disable portions of it.
I can simply disable window resizing. Which I do. I also have it so that you can't write to my status bar.

How delightful for you. But as a site owner I will still control those
things in IE on Win.

No. You won't. You don't. You haven't been able to for years.

How so? Works for me, my clients and their customers.
Signed,
me

[me]

"Steve" <no****@spambot.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:d1**********@titan.btinternet.com...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Ti****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

> Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.
> Signed,
> me

Some = more than one.

Signed,
me too.
Not exactly what I had in mind but fair enough.
Signed,
me

Actually I would have said the above definition was a gramatical

equivilent for 'some'.

hey ho...

:-)
Signed,
me

[Joel Shepherd]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

But as a site owner I will still control those things in IE on Win.

No. You won't. You don't. You haven't been able to for years.

How so? Works for me, my clients and their customers.

You can't *control* what JS effects the client sees, even with IE. JS
can be disabled in IE via the Tools->Options menu, and that has been the
case for years. You can certainly send JS to do all sorts of things in
IE and other browsers, but as a site owner you ultimately cannot
*control* whether a given user sees the results or not. That choice is
firmly in the visitor's hands.

--
Joel.

[me]

"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:jo****************************@news1.west.ear thlink.net...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>
> But as a site owner I will still control those things in IE on Win.

No. You won't. You don't. You haven't been able to for years.

How so? Works for me, my clients and their customers.

You can't *control* what JS effects the client sees, even with IE. JS
can be disabled in IE via the Tools->Options menu, and that has been the
case for years. You can certainly send JS to do all sorts of things in
IE and other browsers, but as a site owner you ultimately cannot
*control* whether a given user sees the results or not. That choice is
firmly in the visitor's hands.

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and that
10% are of no concern.
Signed,
me

[jake]

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]

(*)You can set up Javascript to do it, but unless you're careful
the result will be thayt sensible people who have Javascript turned
off won't be able to view your content at all.

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
Carla

Probably less than 1%.
regards.

--
Jake

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

jake wrote:

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Probably less than 1%.

Depends on where you look. <g>

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Joel Shepherd wrote:

You can't *control* what JS effects the client sees, even with IE.
JS can be disabled in IE via the Tools->Options menu, and that has
been the case for years.
And indeed IE supports different levels of security for different
sites. So it might allow js from a few trusted sites and reject it
from any others. Our department deploys a policy which sets those
security levels without individual user action being needed.

Not forgetting that some security-sensitive corporate sites are
reported to filter-out js from documents passing-in through their
firewall. Then it doesn't matter which wowser their end-users are
running.
You can certainly send JS to do all sorts of things in
IE and other browsers, but as a site owner you ultimately cannot
*control* whether a given user sees the results or not.
I'm afraid we haven't heard the last of that standard litany "it works
for all *our* users". After all, if it doesn't work, they aren't
their users, are they? So the argument is self-fulfilling.
That choice is firmly in the visitor's hands.

That's only the way it looks to us. :-}

Then again, considering what *some* js scripts are used for, the worst
that can happen from the user's point of view is that it *does* work.

[jake]

ad************@individual.net>, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid> writes

jake wrote:

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Probably less than 1%.

Depends on where you look. <g>

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF

(last 100 visitors, I think)

On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.
regards.

--
Jake

[Stan Brown]

"Stan Brown" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"c.thornquist" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Suppose it's 1%. (The real number is probably larger, especially
since it's not even available in some browsers.)

By coincidence, last night I read in a book that the actual figure
is 10-15%. The book was either DEGUNKING YOUR EMAIL or COMPUTER
SECURITY FOR THE HOME AND SMALL OFFICE. (I've got them in two
different spots in the house to read at odd moments.)

--

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

[Stan Brown]

"Peter1968" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:11*************@corp.supernews.com...

Please give a numerical equivalent for "some". Thank you.

Some = more than one.

Actually, in logic "some" = "one or more" :-)

--

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

[Stan Brown]

"jake" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

ad************@individual.net>, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid> writes

jake wrote:

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]
What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?

Probably less than 1%.

Depends on where you look. <g>

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF

(last 100 visitors, I think)

On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.

In other words, as BTS says, it depends on where you look.

Any stats on a Web site concerning browser usage of a particular
feature are to be taken with a very large shaker of salt, since
people have a tendency to stay away from a site (and warn others
away or at least not recommend it to others) when they find it
doesn't work right.

To take a simplistic example, a site that uses JS will obviously
grossly underestimate the share of Net users that don't have JS or
have turned it off.
--

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

[jake]

In message <3a**************@individual.net>, Stan Brown
<th************@fastmail.fm> writes

"jake" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

ad************@individual.net>, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid> writes

jake wrote:

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]
> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>
Probably less than 1%.

Depends on where you look. <g>

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF

(last 100 visitors, I think)

On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.

In other words, as BTS says, it depends on where you look.

Any stats on a Web site concerning browser usage of a particular
feature are to be taken with a very large shaker of salt,

Depends on whether they back up people's preconceived ideas, or not ;-)
since
people have a tendency to stay away from a site (and warn others
away or at least not recommend it to others) when they find it
doesn't work right.

To take a simplistic example, a site that uses JS will obviously
grossly underestimate the share of Net users that don't have JS or
have turned it off.
Depends on how they get to the site. If they get there mainly through
search engine results, I'd suggest they're a fairly random selection.

I've never really believed in this '10-15%' that seems to be doing the
rounds on Usenet -- mainly because it would suggest that 1- or 2 people
in every 10 that I know would be 'js-challenged' -- something that's not
backed up by experience. ("Javascript"? What's that?")

So. "Lies, Dammed lies, and Statistics"

regards.

--
Jake

[Lachlan Hunt]

me wrote:

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and that
10% are of no concern.

I find it odd that people can quite happily reject 1 in 10 people, as
being of no concern. Considering the number of people that use the
internet, I really don't understand how people can reach the conclusion
that a small percentage equals a very small number of users. Even if
you only had 1,000 visitors to your site in total, you'd still be
turning away 100 of them just because they "are of no concern". Of
course, real numbers are likely to be much higher, particularly for
commercial sites, so please don't reject a small percentage of users,
because it really could be a large number of potential customers.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox

[me]

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

me wrote:

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and that 10% are of no concern.

I find it odd that people can quite happily reject 1 in 10 people, as
being of no concern. Considering the number of people that use the
internet, I really don't understand how people can reach the conclusion
that a small percentage equals a very small number of users. Even if
you only had 1,000 visitors to your site in total, you'd still be
turning away 100 of them just because they "are of no concern". Of
course, real numbers are likely to be much higher, particularly for
commercial sites, so please don't reject a small percentage of users,
because it really could be a large number of potential customers.

Attempting to cater to every idosyncracy is IMO a fool's errand. YMMV and it
almost certainly does.
Signed,
me

[me]

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:3a**************@individual.net...

"jake" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

ad************@individual.net>, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid> writes

jake wrote:

In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
<c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
[snip]
> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>
Probably less than 1%.

Depends on where you look. <g>

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php

JavaScript Stats
Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF

(last 100 visitors, I think)

On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.

In other words, as BTS says, it depends on where you look.

Any stats on a Web site concerning browser usage of a particular
feature are to be taken with a very large shaker of salt, since
people have a tendency to stay away from a site (and warn others
away or at least not recommend it to others) when they find it
doesn't work right.

You assume they will leave and/or never return. You further assume they will
be motivated to complain to someone else, or not recommend it. If they
turned JS off (or use a browser that doesn't support it, have it, etc etc
etc) they likely (surely?) know why some features of a site are unavailable
to them. You make still further assumptions that people who don't use JS
will assume that others are as opposed to JS as they are (or are even
interested in their complaint/bias) and will spread the word not to use such
and such site.
To take a simplistic example, a site that uses JS will obviously
grossly underestimate the share of Net users that don't have JS or
have turned it off.

Another assumption.

Since we're making assumptions I will assume based on the stats I've seen
that approximately 90% of all user have JS enabled and will therefore
encounter no problems at my sites. End of assumptions.
Signed,
me

[Joel Shepherd]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and that
10% are of no concern.

You neglected to finish that last sentence with "to me." Others might be
concerned.

--
Joel.

[me]

"Joel Shepherd" <jo******@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:jo****************************@news1.west.ear thlink.net...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, "me" <anonymous@_.com>
wrote:

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and that 10% are of no concern.

You neglected to finish that last sentence with "to me." Others might be
concerned.

--
Joel.

Fair enough but it was no accident.
Signed,
me

[Lachlan Hunt]

me wrote:

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

me wrote:

TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and
that 10% are of no concern.

I find it odd that people can quite happily reject 1 in 10 people, as
being of no concern...

Attempting to cater to every idosyncracy is IMO a fool's errand. YMMV and it
almost certainly does.

How is catering for users without JS a fool's errand? It's not like
it's hard to do. Well written HTML, CSS and JS that is completely,
separated from each other is usually very close to, if not completely,
accessible to those without one or the other; with the added bonus that
such code is extremely easy to maintain. The only reason one could come
across any difficulties with making a site accessible to a non-JS user
is if the JS is unconditionally required to access or render some
content, but in such cases, it has usually not been well written.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox

[c.thornquist]

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

me wrote:

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

me wrote:
TheCounter.com reports that 90% of all users have JS enabled. You and
that 10% are of no concern.

I find it odd that people can quite happily reject 1 in 10 people, as
being of no concern...
Attempting to cater to every idosyncracy is IMO a fool's errand. YMMV and
it
almost certainly does.

How is catering for users without JS a fool's errand? It's not like it's
hard to do.

Well written HTML, CSS and JS that is completely, separated from each
other is usually very close to, if not completely, accessible to those
without one or the other;
I'm not sure what you mean. What could I have used in place of the
javascript I used in the pop-ups on this page (
http://www.dandefurniture.com/DE_Dick_Idol.html ) ? I do not want the page
any longer than it already is & as a web surfer, I prefer to click to a
smallish pop-up, rather than move to a new page to view the individual small
images. Why open a new page for one small image? Is there a way to code the
pop-up using HTML?

I used javascript for nav bars in which the table cells changed color on
hover, until I stumbled on some code used by Microsoft in my inbox of
HotMail. Now I use that (it's the code in the page example above).

What about "today's date" on pages? Can that be coded w/o javascript?
with the added bonus that such code is extremely easy to maintain. The
only reason one could come across any difficulties with making a site
accessible to a non-JS user is if the JS is unconditionally required to
access or render some content, but in such cases, it has usually not been
well written.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox

I'm not being sarcastic or contrary. I just want to know.

Thanks.

Carla

[c.thornquist]

>>> In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
>>><c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
>>> [snip]
>>>> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>>>>
>>> Probably less than 1%.
>>
>>Depends on where you look. <g>
>>
>>http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php
>>
>>JavaScript Stats
>>Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days
>>
>>Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
>>Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
>>Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)
>>
>http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF
>
>(last 100 visitors, I think)
>
>On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.
In other words, as BTS says, it depends on where you look.

Any stats on a Web site concerning browser usage of a particular
feature are to be taken with a very large shaker of salt, since
people have a tendency to stay away from a site (and warn others
away or at least not recommend it to others) when they find it
doesn't work right.

You assume they will leave and/or never return. You further assume they
will
be motivated to complain to someone else, or not recommend it. If they
turned JS off (or use a browser that doesn't support it, have it, etc etc
etc) they likely (surely?) know why some features of a site are
unavailable
to them.

I agree. The only people I know of who turn it off are computer geeks like
myself.

I believe The Counter's stats come from visitors to The Counter. Anyone
know? I assume IT people visit The Counter more than any other demographic,
so the stats may be skewed. I'd guess the actual figure is much lower than 1
in 10. Closer to 2-3% probably.
You make still further assumptions that people who don't use JS
will assume that others are as opposed to JS as they are (or are even
interested in their complaint/bias) and will spread the word not to use
such
and such site.

To take a simplistic example, a site that uses JS will obviously
grossly underestimate the share of Net users that don't have JS or
have turned it off.

Another assumption.

Since we're making assumptions I will assume based on the stats I've seen
that approximately 90% of all user have JS enabled and will therefore
encounter no problems at my sites. End of assumptions.
Signed,
me

Cheers,

Carla

[me]

"c.thornquist" <c.**********@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:HhL0e.955$NW5.326@attbi_s02...

>>> In message <f7V%d.1241$pa.365@attbi_s02>, c.thornquist
>>><c.**********@insightbb.com> writes
>>> [snip]
>>>> What percentage of internet users have Javascript turned off?
>>>>
>>> Probably less than 1%.
>>
>>Depends on where you look. <g>
>>
>>http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/javas.php
>>
>>JavaScript Stats
>>Sat Jan 1 00:01:02 2005 - Mon Jan 31 23:58:00 2005 31.0 Days
>>
>>Javascript 1.2+: 55112827 (89%)
>>Javascript <1.2: 172693 (0%)
>>Javascript false: 5967731 (9%)
>>
>http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/STATS.GIF
>
>(last 100 visitors, I think)
>
>On occasions it goes higher ... but usually it's in the range 0%-1%.

In other words, as BTS says, it depends on where you look.

Any stats on a Web site concerning browser usage of a particular
feature are to be taken with a very large shaker of salt, since
people have a tendency to stay away from a site (and warn others
away or at least not recommend it to others) when they find it
doesn't work right.
You assume they will leave and/or never return. You further assume they
will
be motivated to complain to someone else, or not recommend it. If they
turned JS off (or use a browser that doesn't support it, have it, etc etc etc) they likely (surely?) know why some features of a site are
unavailable
to them.

I agree. The only people I know of who turn it off are computer geeks like
myself.

I believe The Counter's stats come from visitors to The Counter. Anyone
know? I assume IT people visit The Counter more than any other

demographic, so the stats may be skewed. I'd guess the actual figure is much lower than 1 in 10. Closer to 2-3% probably.

You make still further assumptions that people who don't use JS
will assume that others are as opposed to JS as they are (or are even
interested in their complaint/bias) and will spread the word not to use
such
and such site.

To take a simplistic example, a site that uses JS will obviously
grossly underestimate the share of Net users that don't have JS or
have turned it off.

Another assumption.

Since we're making assumptions I will assume based on the stats I've seen that approximately 90% of all user have JS enabled and will therefore
encounter no problems at my sites. End of assumptions.
Signed,
me

Cheers,
Carla

Hi Carla,
IIRC the stats are from all of the sites that use a hit counter supplied by
TheCounter.com. I think I read it on their site once but darned if I can
find it now. I do know they changed their domain name sometime ago. I had
them bookmarked but when the link broke I just deleted it. One of your posts
in this thread made me aware that they still existed, thanks. :-)
Signed,
me