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

[Randy Webb]

VK said the following on 11/21/2005 12:40 PM:

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.

Nothing wrong with having a JS heavy web-app. Just make it so that
non-JS doesn't get to it without some direction action from the user.

The problem with this part of your statement:

<quote>
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.
</quote>

Is that you still seem to think you have to make 2 versions of
everything when you don't.

But, if you will tell me how to enable Javascript on my non-JS Cell
Phone Browser that is under 3 months old, you may have a chance of
changing my mind about non-JS browsers.

And my cell phone is not the only place where you may run into non-JS
browsers where the user can't change the settings.

Second:
If you have to ask "Otherwise what use is Javascript at all", then you
shouldn't be using Javascript to start with.

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

[VK]

Randy Webb wrote:

The problem with this part of your statement:
<quote>
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.
</quote>
Is that you still seem to think you have to make 2 versions of
everything when you don't.
Then I must be missing the ability to read between the lines, because
the statement which caused my polemics was:

<quote>
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
</quote>

By reading it in the conventional English I understand it as: "My page
cannot work == produce the intended user experience without JavaScript
enabled. I am a bad developer."

This leads me to a conclusion that any web solution has to be endorsed
first by a fully equivalent server-side solution (in case if the
scripting is disabled). And only then you may start to develope a
client-side based equivalent.

This leads me to the question why bother at all to make a client-side
solution is you already have a server-side one?

This leads me to the conclusion that besides some really primitive form
helpers client-side scripting should be avoided at all.

Please mark the logical failure in this sequence (if any).

My personal position is that client-side scripting is not anymore an
add-on to the browsing experince. It is an integral part of such
experience like online forms or graphics support. You can disable
JavaScript if you really want. You can disable form submission,
graphics support, CSS support, SSL support, install MS-DOS version of
Lynx, make your own browser etc. etc.
This is your freedom of choice, *but* you shouldn't bother anyone else
with your freedom issues as well as anyone should be bothered with your
ideas of self-expression.

You want to drive - you need a car. You want to play Quake - you need a
computer. You want to get an adequate browsing experience - you have to
use a standard compliant browser or IE with reasonnable security
settings. You want an omlet - you have to break the eggs.
But, if you will tell me how to enable Javascript on my non-JS Cell
Phone Browser that is under 3 months old, you may have a chance of
changing my mind about non-JS browsers.

PDA and cellphones are all different issue. The current slogan "Get the
same pages in the same way in your cellphone" is a pure propaganda from
cellphone producers. It is called "aggressive advertisement" ;-)
Many web-portals are getting slow on my test laptop 260MGz / 96Mb The
idea that anyone may manage to have full and quick emulation of say IE
6.0 on a low-energy ARMS processor with 32/64 Mb available is ...
non-adequate.
It's all the question of the crutial mass. As soon as it was reached
for GPRS cellphones, WML language and WML site development became
requested. Now any respectable web-service has a WML mirror.
Then the crucial mass of new generation of web-phones will be reached,
a scaled down, cell-phone adjusted HTML/XML version will become a must
either.

You personally just paying the price of being between the first users
of a new software / hardware. They are always paying the highest price
and they are getting all bugs, products recalls and other setup
troubles ;-)

[Steven Daedelus]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:48:06 -0500, Michael Winter wrote
(in article <GD************ ******@text.new s.blueyonder.co .uk>):

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.

Not too tired to snipe, however.

[Richard Cornford]

VK wrote:
<snip>

<quote>
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
</quote>

By reading it in the conventional English I understand
it as: "My page cannot work == produce the intended user
experience without JavaScript enabled. I am a bad developer."
Yes, where 'intended' means behaviour in accordance with the design and
sufficient for the task. Such designs are possible so it is reasonable
to question why that are not achieved when they are not achieved.
Shortcomings on the part of the developer are a reasonable hypothesis in
the absence of other information.
This leads me to a conclusion that any web solution has to
be endorsed first by a fully equivalent server-side solution
(in case if the scripting is disabled). And only then you may
start to develope a client-side based equivalent.
You seem to have a real hang-up with doing everything twice. Doing
things twice is a seriously bad idea because it is inevitably expensive.
An integrated design with a suitably layered architecture can achieve a
totally reliable design with little or no extra coding time given to
accommodating javascript incapable/disabled browsers.
This leads me to the question why bother at all to make a
client-side solution is you already have a server-side one?
You wouldn't be making a client side 'solution'. Whatever happens you
are going to need a back end of some sort to do anything worth wile so
all the client-side code was never going to be more than a GUI. HTML can
provide a workable GUI, and then client-side scripting can transform it
(in virtually any way imaginable).
This leads me to the conclusion that besides some really
primitive form helpers client-side scripting should be
avoided at all.
Only because you cannot understand how javascript can be used to
enhance, and indeed radically transform, a web page (and its GUI)
without introducing any dependency upon client-side scripting. See:-

<URL: http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/js_info/pop_ups.html >

- with and without scripting enabled.
Please mark the logical failure in this sequence (if any).
You are looking for an excuse (any excuse) for never trying. But the
question is not how little can be gotten away with (a quick survey of
the Internet as it is will tell you that), the question of interest is
what can be achieved, and how it might best be achieved.
My personal position is that client-side scripting is not
anymore an add-on to the browsing experince.
Your opinion is of little worth. Web sites, web applications and so on,
have a purpose. As a professional developer is would be your task to
know how to best achieve that purpose. Once you know and fully
understand what can be achieved you will find yourself in the best
possible position to make informed judgements about how to achieve the
required purpose.

Your position is that if the purpose cannot be achieved without
client-side scripting running on one or two configurations or one or two
browsers what meat your personal standards then you are not going to
even try. It is a very low standard and so relatively easy for a
programmer as poor as you to achieve, but it isn't necessarily in the
best interests of whoever may be paying you for your inferior creations.
It is an integral part of such experience like online forms
or graphics support. You can disable JavaScript if you really
want. You can disable form submission, graphics support, CSS
support, SSL support, install MS-DOS version of Lynx, make your
own browser etc. etc. This is your freedom of choice, *but*
you shouldn't bother anyone else with your freedom issues as
well as anyone should be bothered with your ideas of
self-expression.
And in e-commerce how much good does it do to be laming the user for
your inability to take money off them.
You want to drive - you need a car. You want to play Quake -
you need a computer. You want to get an adequate browsing
experience - you have to use a standard compliant browser
or IE with reasonnable security settings. You want an omlet
- you have to break the eggs.
And if you want to sell things you want a shop that everyone can get
into. If you want to make money form advertising you want as many people
as possible to see those adverts, and so not only get in in the first
place but keep coming back. If you want a good search engine ranking you
want a site that can be navigated without javascript. And so on.

If the user, any user, can be accommodated at no additional cost or
effort then getting up in arms because they don't want to (or cannot)
use your preferred browser can only detract from the potential of a web
site for no good reason.

But, if you will tell me how to enable Javascript on my
non-JS Cell Phone Browser that is under 3 months old,
you may have a chance of changing my mind about non-JS
browsers.

PDA and cellphones are all different issue. The current
slogan "Get the same pages in the same way in your cellphone"
is a pure propaganda from cellphone producers. It is called
"aggressive advertisement" ;-)

<snip> You personally just paying the price of being between the
first users of a new software / hardware. They are always
paying the highest price and they are getting all bugs,
products recalls and other setup troubles ;-)

There you go again, blame the user when they suffer from your
incompetence and suggest people create yet another version of their web
site when a single version written to take advantage of the
interoperabilit y that has been designed into the technologies used on
the web is capable of accommodating small mobile devices as easily as
desktop browsers.

Richard.