By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,289 Members | 1,463 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,289 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Dropdown menu javascript menus a bad choice?

P: n/a

This sounds like a frequently asked question, but I
didn't find the answer in any faq I've looked at.

I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.

Question:
Does google interpret javascript?
Or, in other words, are client-side-javascript-generated links
invisible to search engines?

Isn't this a strong argument for not using javascript, at
least for generating links of any kind?
Seems like css-positioned menus would be a better choice.
Jul 24 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
18 Replies


P: n/a
sandy wrote:
Does google interpret javascript?
No.
Or, in other words, are client-side-javascript-generated links
invisible to search engines?
Yes.
Isn't this a strong argument for not using javascript,
No. http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/...ivejavascript/
at least for generating links of any kind?
Yes.
Seems like css-positioned menus would be a better choice.


Positioning is tricky to get right. In many cases floating is the better
option.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 24 '05 #2

P: n/a
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:06:53 -0700, sandy
<sa********@slowtorture.spammers.com> wrote:

This sounds like a frequently asked question, but I
didn't find the answer in any faq I've looked at.

I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.

Question:
Does google interpret javascript?
No. Not as a rule.
Or, in other words, are client-side-javascript-generated links
invisible to search engines?
Pretty much. There are spider-simulators you can check these things
with, a quick Google will reveal loads.
Isn't this a strong argument for not using javascript, at
least for generating links of any kind?
Absolutely.
Seems like css-positioned menus would be a better choice.


I'd check them with a sim too. CSS is still evolving at such a rate
I'd take nothing for granted.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ se*@kruse.demon.co.uk
Elvis does my seo
--
Jul 24 '05 #3

P: n/a
sandy wrote:

This sounds like a frequently asked question, but I
didn't find the answer in any faq I've looked at.

I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.

Question:
Does google interpret javascript?
Or, in other words, are client-side-javascript-generated links
invisible to search engines?

Isn't this a strong argument for not using javascript, at
least for generating links of any kind?
Seems like css-positioned menus would be a better choice.

i have a js include importing my menu for users + a noscript with a link
back to my main page which has the non-js menu on for spiders etc, so
either way im covered...
Jul 24 '05 #4

P: n/a
sandy <sa********@slowtorture.spammers.com> writes:
I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.


Dropdown menus were a great tool for photo-editing software that had to
work on 640x480 screens. They compacted the design a great deal.

Today I think they're overused. I see many pages where it would be
*much* better to present the user's choices without forcing an extra
click. Use a table or a bulleted list.

Recently I changed a form that is used to classify press releases,
replacing the OPTION elements with tables of radio buttons. It's proved
a lot more usable since the change.
Jul 25 '05 #5

P: n/a
Bruce Lewis wrote:
sandy <sa********@slowtorture.spammers.com> writes:
I have a question about the wisdom of using
(javascript generated) dropdown menus.


Dropdown menus were a great tool for photo-editing software that had to
work on 640x480 screens. They compacted the design a great deal.

Today I think they're overused. I see many pages where it would be
*much* better to present the user's choices without forcing an extra
click. Use a table or a bulleted list.

Recently I changed a form that is used to classify press releases,
replacing the OPTION elements with tables of radio buttons. It's proved
a lot more usable since the change.

tables should only be used for tabular data, not for layout etc...
Jul 25 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:42:43 +0100, Jedi Fans <"news[at]jedifans[--=dot==-]com">
wrote:
tables should only be used for tabular data, not for layout etc...


Will someone please post a link to violin music?
Jul 28 '05 #7

P: n/a
Jedi Fans wrote:
[...]

tables should only be used for tabular data, not for layout etc...


I had a baseball coach once who would often ask players:

'When is a pitch a strike?'.

After numerous responses, he'd provide the answer:

'When the umpire says it is'
So when do you use tables? When it's best to do so.


--
Rob
Jul 28 '05 #8

P: n/a
RobG wrote:
'When the umpire says it is' So when do you use tables? When it's best to do so.


Which, according to the umpire is when the data is tabular, and not for
layout.

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document
content
and
authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.

-- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.1

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 28 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:27:52 +0100, David Dorward <do*****@yahoo.com> wrote:
RobG wrote:
'When the umpire says it is'
So when do you use tables? When it's best to do so.


Which, according to the umpire is when the data is tabular, and not for
layout.

Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document
content
and
authors should use style sheets to control layout rather than tables.

-- http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.1

David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is


The umpire wears ladies underpants. Maybe someday style sheets will
be suitable for page layout. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

Incidentally, there is a novel, pop-out menu on the left age. Uses
javascript but it's not essential for navigation.

See this on any of the sub-pages such as:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/istanb.../ArtIndex.aspx

Mason C

Jul 28 '05 #10

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
The umpire wears ladies underpants. Maybe someday style sheets will
be suitable for page layout. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx

Incidentally, there is a novel, pop-out menu on the left age. Uses
javascript but it's not essential for navigation.

See this on any of the sub-pages such as:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/istanb.../ArtIndex.aspx

<URL: http://yahoo.com> <URL: http://www.csszengarden.com> (second has
many many alternate styles...
Jul 28 '05 #11

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Mason A. Clark
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> writing in
news:ns********************************@4ax.com:
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page
layout.

Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx


If the developer doesn't use Interdev, I'm sure it's a nightmare to
maintain. The tables are nested four deep, with lovely markup such as:
<TR>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=67 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=22 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=19 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=35 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=10 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=13 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=37 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=34 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=33 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=36 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=12 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=5 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=6 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=38 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=62 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=101 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=124 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=115 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=31 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""></TD>
<TD valign="top"> <IMG SRC="Index2/spacer.gif" WIDTH=150 HEIGHT=1
ALT=""></TD> <TD></TD>

I write a lot of server side code, and believe me, not having to cobble
tables for positioning, and not having to worry about presentational
markup has made my life _a lot_ easier.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Jul 28 '05 #12

P: n/a
rf
Mason A. Clark wrote:
Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx


http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/screenshot/ist.jpg

Cheers
Richard.
Jul 28 '05 #13

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
The umpire wears ladies underpants. Maybe someday style sheets will
be suitable for page layout. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system. In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.


Almost all the sites on the web use tables for page layout ...
http://dorward.me.uk/tmp/but-most/

Meanwhile: http://www.cssreboot.com/

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Jul 28 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 09:08:57 GMT, "rf" <@invalid.com> wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
Here's one of the most beautiful on the internet:

http://www.istanbulportal.com/Default.aspx


http://users.bigpond.net.au/rf/screenshot/ist.jpg

Cheers
Richard.

Wow ! I had only viewed it with Opera. The home
page graphics are broken in MSIE and Firefox. The
other pages look ok. I've called this to the attention
of the webmaster. Odd that they must have done
their testing only in Opera??

A beautiful site nevertheless.

Mason C
Jul 28 '05 #15

P: n/a
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> said:
The umpire wears ladies underpants.
That's none of the business of the players, and is irrelevant to the
umpire's ability to do his/her job.
Maybe someday style sheets will be suitable for page layout.
For at least the last few years, and for a long time to come yet.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system.
There are certainly flaws in the CSS concept. But it's the best we've
got for now. Yes, that includes being better than tables for layout.
In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.


The lemming mentality doesn't become you.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 28 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:14:46 +1000, Mark Parnell
<we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote:
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> said:
The umpire wears ladies underpants.


That's none of the business of the players, and is irrelevant to the
umpire's ability to do his/her job.
Maybe someday style sheets will be suitable for page layout.


For at least the last few years, and for a long time to come yet.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
css style must be replaced with a workable system.


There are certainly flaws in the CSS concept. But it's the best we've
got for now. Yes, that includes being better than tables for layout.
In the meantime
almost all of the really well-designed sites use tables for page layout.


The lemming mentality doesn't become you.


Your use of tables for what is not *data* surprised me. Surely you
could use css? Then you use css for a table of actual data -- ok, but
tables would be suitable there.

Bottom line: use what works for you.

Mason C
Jul 29 '05 #17

P: n/a
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, "Mason A. Clark"
<ma*************@ix.netcom.com> said:
Your use of tables for what is not *data* surprised me. Surely you
could use css?
You talking to me? Where have I done that?
Then you use css for a table of actual data
Again, where have I done that?
ok, but
tables would be suitable there.


Absolutely. That's what they are designed for, and I don't know of
anyone here who has ever suggested otherwise.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 29 '05 #18

P: n/a
Jedi Fans <"news[at]jedifans[--=dot==-]com"> writes:
Bruce Lewis wrote:
Recently I changed a form that is used to classify press releases,
replacing the OPTION elements with tables of radio buttons. It's proved
a lot more usable since the change.

tables should only be used for tabular data, not for layout etc...


A radio button and a description of its value form a row of tabular
data.

As it turns out I didn't use tables, just <br> at the end of each
description. Tables would have been more correct than what I actually
did.
Aug 1 '05 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.