JS Guru needed! Why doesn't this work?

[Giggle Girl]

My pages need to unfold gracefully even if Javascript is disabled, but
I can't get this to work?

Please help, Javascript Gurus!!

<noscript>
document.write( '<span class=warning>< b>Warning</b>: You must enable
javascript for this page to work properly!</span>')
</noscript>

Thanks so much,
Ann

[antoine.viau]

There is some paradox in your code...
If Javascript is disabled (or unavailable on "really old" browser), it
means it cannot execute any kind of JS.
And you're asking to execute some JS when there is no JS.uh ? :-)
Means :
<noscript>
<span class=warning>W arning, you must...</span>
</noscript>

Antoine

[Randy Webb]

Giggle Girl said the following on 11/21/2005 10:30 AM:

My pages need to unfold gracefully even if Javascript is disabled, but
I can't get this to work?

Please help, Javascript Gurus!!

<noscript>
document.write( '<span class=warning>< b>Warning</b>: You must enable
javascript for this page to work properly!</span>')
</noscript>

<noscript>
<span class="warning" >I do not have a clue how to make my page work with
javascript disabled so you must come back with a script enabled browser
to see a page that probably isn't worth seeing to start with</span>
</noscript>

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[VK]

Randy Webb wrote:

<noscript>
<span class="warning" >I do not have a clue how to make my page work with
javascript disabled so you must come back with a script enabled browser
to see a page that probably isn't worth seeing to start with</span>
</noscript>

<noscript>
<span class="warning" >
My web application is based heavily on JavaScript. I have no idea why
did you turn JavaScript off, but you have to turn it on again to use my
application. I personally have no intention to make two equivalent
versions of my application: one for normal visitors, other one for few
dumb a** like you. Othervise what use JavaScript at all? So I'm affraid
this is your step to make.
</span>
</noscript>

I dend to believe that this warning text is much better.

[Michael Winter]

On 21/11/2005 17:40, VK wrote:

[snip]

I personally have no intention to make two equivalent versions of my
application: one for normal visitors, other one for few dumb a** like
you.
Has it occurred to you that you're the only regular poster to this group
that actually believes that two versions would be necessary? Another
situation where you're right, and everyone else is wrong, perhaps?

You made a similar statement about a month ago, and I tried to explain
that it was nonsense then, too. Evidentially, the notion of graceful
degradation hasn't sunk in yet.

[snip]
I dend to believe that this warning text is much better.

You are clearly beyond help. It's a shame, but a situation that I,
personally, am tired of dealing with.

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[VK]

Michael Winter wrote:

Has it occurred to you that you're the only regular poster to this group
that actually believes that two versions would be necessary? Another
situation where you're right, and everyone else is wrong, perhaps?

Dear Michael,

First of all let me make it clear that "dumb a**" in my previous post
was totally in the context of that humorous address to some user with
JavaScript disabled and it was not anyhow addressed to the post
readers. I believe it is rather clear but I'd like to make it even more
clear.

Secondly the statement that any page has to be functional with or
without JavaScript is indeed completely false and is not covered by the
"fall gracefully" requirement. The page should not crash the browser
and user should be always informed that some or all of the page
functionality is currently not available. This is all.

I cannot think of any situations when the page with JS enabled would
provide the same or comparable user experience as the same page without
JS enabled. Maybe only some really primitive form helpers (like setting
focus to the first form field).

But I can think of many famous and prospering web services which are
not functional w/o client-side scripting.

And some services (like Google Maps and Google Suggests) *are not
reproducible* by server-side-only solutions. They need either
client-side scripting or stay-alone application.

So yes, I know that a lot of people would like to see JavaScript /
JScript on its 10-years old place: as a toy which is nice to have but
OK to leave without. There are also some people who would like to keep
historical Books Of ECMA as all explaining source of information
forever.

They may want to think again what year is now and visit
<http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/>

P.S. I see a new urban legend is growing here recently (I traced it
back to one a month old post):-
about JavaScript disabled in corporate environment for security
measures.

Personally (so not *officially*) in 5 years spent so far in the Bay
Area plus daily visits to San Jose I did not see one damn user with
disabled JavaScript/JScript. I also did not see yet one network admin
who would disable JavaScript as a *valid security measure*. That alone
would suffice to feel free to fire his a**, as a person who has no clue
what the security is about and how to handle it.

[VK]

VK wrote:

I cannot think of any situations when the page with JS enabled would
provide the same or comparable user experience as the same page without
JS enabled.

A metathese obviously :-)
Must be:

I cannot think of any situations when the page with JS disabled would
provide the same or comparable user experience as the same page with JS
enabled.

[VK]

Just another 2 minutes fresh sample of what I'm saying:

<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/browse_frm/thread/c5b2b99752d293d 1/228d5767a24608b 6#228d5767a2460 8b6>

"you can't do this, it's server-side only"
"you can't do that, it's application only"

Big surprises are coming though... ;-)

[Michael Winter]

On 21/11/2005 20:05, VK wrote:

[snip]

Secondly the statement that any page has to be functional with or
without JavaScript is indeed completely false
Would you care to venture a reason for why you think that is? Is that an
absolute statement on your part, or is there a hidden qualifier you
neglected to mention?
and is not covered by the "fall gracefully" requirement.
Yes, it is. By my definition, anyway, and the definition often (always?)
used in this group.
The page should not crash the browser
That isn't a consequence of designing for graceful degradation, that's
just competency.
and user should be always informed that some or all of the page
functionality is currently not available.
That isn't graceful. That's unmitigated failure.
[I cannot think of any situations when the page with JS disabled
would provide the same or comparable user experience as the same page
with JS enabled.]
Care to define "comparable user experience", and give an example
situation? As far as I know, "user experience" encompasses a few
qualities together: appearance, content, functionality, and usability.
If you can't think of any situations where the server cannot provide a
comparable experience, you mustn't be trying hard enough. The approach
taken will almost certainly be different and may even need to be broken
down into separate stages.

Not everything can be reproduced, but not everything needs to be.
But I can think of many famous and prospering web services which are
not functional w/o client-side scripting.
Good for them. Doesn't mean it's the right approach to take. If you
explained that the same thing could be provided to everyone, rather than
excluding some users (and potential income), I'd expect management would
agree, too.
And some services (like Google Maps and Google Suggests) *are not
reproducible* by server-side-only solutions.
Google Maps certainly can be. Movement of the map will be limited to
jumps using the controls to the top-left rather than dragging, but the
experience (as defined above) will be the same.

Google Suggests can't be, but that's one of those things that doesn't
need to be. I, and millions of others, have managed to use Google
without an auto-complete feature for years, so if Google Search
implemented this by default, it wouldn't matter if it was used or not as
long as the original behaviour was maintained.

[snip]
They may want to think again what year is now and visit
<http://www.w3.org/2006/webapi/>

Exactly what is the point you're trying to make? That the W3C are trying
to standardise some de facto and proprietary features? So what? That
doesn't mean that all users must suddenly switch to a browser that
implements client-side scripting and must enable that feature (a
ridiculous notion).

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[VK]

Michael Winter wrote:

Google Suggests can't be, but that's one of those things that doesn't
need to be. I, and millions of others, have managed to use Google
without an auto-complete feature for years.

This statement alone shows the difference in our *positions* over this
question and their hardware incompatibility which no discussion may
remove.

I just wondering why did you limit yourselve by *millions* of people
who managed to live w/o Google Suggests?

Not so long ago *billions* of people managed to live w/o Internet and
the world did not crash because of it.