Using noscript overlaps "normal"

[Andrew Poulos]

If I have a page with a bunch of content and some javascript in the head
how do I notify the javascript disabled users that enabling javascript
would enhance their experience. At the moment I'm trying the noscript
tag but its content overlaps the "normal" content.

I'd like to put a link to non-javascript pages and I'd rather not put
the normal content in a document.write.
Andrew Poulos

[Michael Winter]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:41:06 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:

If I have a page with a bunch of content and some javascript in the head
how do I notify the javascript disabled users that enabling javascript
would enhance their experience.

You don't need to.

Visitors that lack scripting support usually lack it for a reason so
telling them to turn it on (if that's even possible) is a waste of time.

If the script(s) your documents use really are just to "enhance their
experience", users really don't need to know. If those scripts are
required, and this is a Web page, you probably need to rethink your design.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Andrew Poulos]

Michael Winter wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:41:06 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:

If I have a page with a bunch of content and some javascript in the
head how do I notify the javascript disabled users that enabling
javascript would enhance their experience.

You don't need to.

Visitors that lack scripting support usually lack it for a reason so
telling them to turn it on (if that's even possible) is a waste of time.

If the script(s) your documents use really are just to "enhance their
experience", users really don't need to know. If those scripts are
required, and this is a Web page, you probably need to rethink your design.

I used the term "enhance their experience" so people wouldn't jump on me
for making pages that are dependant on scripting support. Sorry, I
didn't want to get into a discussion about the client's specification
etc. and not get my question addressed. Still it seems my silly ploy
backfired.
Andrew Poulos

[Michael Winter]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:19:41 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[snip]

I used the term "enhance their experience" so people wouldn't jump on me
for making pages that are dependant on scripting support.

People can often say one thing and mean another entirely. I just wanted to
make the point clear.

Whether the script(s) are solely an enhancement or not, the user doesn't
need to be told - and shouldn't be told - to alter their configuration. As
I said, users without scripting support usually lack that support for a
reason and they will not, or simply cannot, change that just because you
say they should. Besides, they should be well aware that they will be
missing out on features that are provided through scripting.

[snip]

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Evertjan.]

Andrew Poulos wrote on 14 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

If I have a page with a bunch of content and some javascript in the
head how do I notify the javascript disabled users that enabling
javascript would enhance their experience. At the moment I'm trying
the noscript tag but its content overlaps the "normal" content.

I'd like to put a link to non-javascript pages and I'd rather not put
the normal content in a document.write.

It should not, unless you use some very tricky css.

Try this, sorry: OT on this NG:

<noscript style='font-size:20pt;color:yellow;
background-color:#555;z-index:9999;text-align:center;'>
<br><br><br>
Idiot!
<br><br><br>
Not enabling scripting should be made a crime against cyberlife!
<br><br>
<a href='/moronpage.html'>Press this, you moron</a>
<br><br>
</noscript>

Not tested,
because I don't even want to know how to switch scripting off.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Tim Williams]

Place the " blah blah enable javascript blah" in a div at the top of
the page and use the onload event to hide it.

Tim.
"Andrew Poulos" <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41***********************@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

If I have a page with a bunch of content and some javascript in the
head how do I notify the javascript disabled users that enabling
javascript would enhance their experience. At the moment I'm trying
the noscript tag but its content overlaps the "normal" content.

I'd like to put a link to non-javascript pages and I'd rather not
put the normal content in a document.write.
Andrew Poulos

[Andrew Poulos]

<clipped>

Whether the script(s) are solely an enhancement or not, the user
doesn't need to be told - and shouldn't be told - to alter their
configuration. As I said, users without scripting support usually lack
that support for a reason and they will not, or simply cannot, change
If I write a Flash-based piece of e-learning that uses javascript to
talk to a SCORM LMS are you saying it should just fail silently if
javascript is disabled? Surely informing users, even if they can't act
on the information, is preferable?
that just because you say they should. Besides, they should be well
aware that they will be missing out on features that are provided
through scripting.

You assume that a user will be using a computer that they regularly have
access to and so are fully aware of its configuration. What if I tried
to use a paranoid colleague's computer?

Andrew Poulos

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:23:24 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com>
wrote:

<clipped>

Whether the script(s) are solely an enhancement or not, the user
doesn't need to be told - and shouldn't be told - to alter their
configuration. As I said, users without scripting support usually lack
that support for a reason and they will not, or simply cannot, change
If I write a Flash-based piece of e-learning that uses javascript to
talk to a SCORM LMS are you saying it should just fail silently if
javascript is disabled?

That is a different situation. As usual, if you don't mention an
environment I, and many others, will assume that we're discussing the Web
in general.
Surely informing users, even if they can't act on the information, is
preferable?
With something that you've just described, yes, but on the Web, no. As you
know, a site should be functional without client-side scripting support so
the need to inform a visitor in that situation shouldn't arise in the
first place. If the script is an enhancement, why should the user care?
How does telling a visitor to turn on scripting help a person who doesn't
even know what Javascript is? Similarly the user of a public-access system
who has no control over the set up whatsoever? If the user has to jump
through hoops to use the site without scripting, the design is flawed.

Users should be spared technical details unless you're sure that they are
capable of understanding them and that they need to know the information.

[snip]
What if I tried to use a paranoid colleague's computer?

If you're using someone else's system, surely you should be respecting the
decisions they make when configuring it?

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Xn*******************@194.109.133.29>, dated Tue, 14
Dec 2004 19:12:13, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Evertjan.
<ex**************@interxnl.net> posted :

Not tested,
because I don't even want to know how to switch scripting off.

For test purposes, if your browser is like mine, it suffices to put
<script>.</script>
on the test page before the other scripting, and to answer "No".

That way, only the page under test can possibly be affected, I hope.

Other characters can be used, but not a digit; I'm not sure what the
*most* invalid one-keypress script might be.

<script>?</script>
might be better, on some keyboards; >?< are all shifted and nearby.

H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately after a failing
script, which may be reasonable.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[Evertjan.]

Dr John Stockton wrote on 15 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

JRS: In article <Xn*******************@194.109.133.29>, dated Tue, 14
Dec 2004 19:12:13, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Evertjan.

Not tested,
because I don't even want to know how to switch scripting off.
For test purposes, if your browser is like mine, it suffices to put
<script>.</script>
on the test page before the other scripting, and to answer "No".

Nice idea.
H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately after a failing
script, which may be reasonable.

As scripting error is not the same as no scripting available:

<script>.</script>
<noscript>Doesn't show on IE6</noscript>

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:16:26 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately
after a failing script, which may be reasonable.

It never should. The contents of a NOSCRIPT element should only be
rendered if:

1) A browser doesn't support client-side scripting of any kind
2) A browser has been configured to ignore client-side scripts
3) A browser doesn't support the client-side scripting language used
by a previous SCRIPT element.

A failed script shouldn't result in the display of a NOSCRIPT element's
contents.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Randy Webb]

Michael Winter wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:16:26 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately
after a failing script, which may be reasonable.

It never should. The contents of a NOSCRIPT element should only be
rendered if:

1) A browser doesn't support client-side scripting of any kind
2) A browser has been configured to ignore client-side scripts
3) A browser doesn't support the client-side scripting language used
by a previous SCRIPT element.

Testing shows 3 to be false though:

<script language="fakeLanguage" type="fake/language">
</script>
<noscript>
This should show but doesn't,(except in Opera 7) even though the browser
doesn't support the "fakeLanguage" scripting language. IE6 and Mozilla
both failed to display this text.
</noscript>

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

[Michael Winter]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:14:27 -0500, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com>
wrote:

Michael Winter wrote:

[snip]

The contents of a NOSCRIPT element should only be rendered if:
[snip]
3) A browser doesn't support the client-side scripting language
used by a previous SCRIPT element.

Testing shows 3 to be false though:

[snip]

To my credit, I said "should" not "does". :P

I was restating what the HTML specification sets out. Considering that few
client-side scripting languages exists, most vendors probably chose to
ignore that bit.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <opsi1scp06x13kvk@atlantis>, dated Wed, 15 Dec 2004
11:42:42, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Michael Winter <M.Winter@bl
ueyonder.co.invalid> posted :

With something that you've just described, yes, but on the Web, no. As you
know, a site should be functional without client-side scripting support so
the need to inform a visitor in that situation shouldn't arise in the
first place.
Some things are only possible client-side; for example, if the server
offers no programmability or if the page is intended to be usable after
the reader has disconnected from the Net.

And I could easily write a page which used so much CPU resource that the
user ought to supply it; checking Zeller's work over the full javascript
date range requires 2E8 * 2 * 2 calculations each to be done in two
ways. If that were popular, the server might not wish to pay. Come to
think of it, I already have a page approaching that.
If the script is an enhancement, why should the user care?
Because if he's getting a lesser experience he ought to be told, in
whatever terms are appropriate. Only if he's missing something which
should be more or less invisible, say local validation, can he rightly
be left ignorant.
How does telling a visitor to turn on scripting help a person who doesn't
even know what Javascript is? Similarly the user of a public-access system
who has no control over the set up whatsoever? If the user has to jump
through hoops to use the site without scripting, the design is flawed.
"If you were using a computer with javascript enabled, you would also be
able to see ... ."
Users should be spared technical details unless you're sure that they are
capable of understanding them and that they need to know the information.

They don't need to be able to understand that, only to repeat it to
someone who knows more.

What if I tried to use a paranoid colleague's computer?

If you're using someone else's system, surely you should be respecting the
decisions they make when configuring it?

Agreed. But not to the extent of not seeking a less paranoid
colleague's computer.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[ap_prog]

Michael Winter wrote:

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:23:24 +1100, Andrew Poulos <ap*****@hotmail.com> wrote:

<clipped>

Whether the script(s) are solely an enhancement or not, the user
doesn't need to be told - and shouldn't be told - to alter their
configuration. As I said, users without scripting support usually lack that support for a reason and they will not, or simply cannot,

change
If I write a Flash-based piece of e-learning that uses javascript to talk to a SCORM LMS are you saying it should just fail silently if javascript is disabled?
That is a different situation. As usual, if you don't mention an
environment I, and many others, will assume that we're discussing the

Web in general.

Surely informing users, even if they can't act on the information, is preferable?
With something that you've just described, yes, but on the Web, no.

As you know, a site should be functional without client-side scripting support so

I just tested my own site without javascript or CSS enabled and it
looks ok (partly because I still use tables for basic layout).
the need to inform a visitor in that situation shouldn't arise in the first place. If the script is an enhancement, why should the user care?

Perhaps the user is unaware that a 'better' experience is available.
Much like how designers put a 'skip intro' button on Flash animations.
I, as the user, get to choose at the point the animation is to play not
for every animation forever. Soemtimes I want/need to see the intro.
How does telling a visitor to turn on scripting help a person who doesn't even know what Javascript is? Similarly the user of a public-access system who has no control over the set up whatsoever? If the user has to jump through hoops to use the site without scripting, the design is flawed.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with it but where do you
reasonably stop?

What if a user does not read english? What if a user at a public
terminal cannot use a mouse, keyboard or trackball?
Users should be spared technical details unless you're sure that they are capable of understanding them and that they need to know the information.

What do you consider a technical detail? My mother wouldn't be able to
turn a computer on let alone use it.

What if I tried to use a paranoid colleague's computer?

If you're using someone else's system, surely you should be

respecting the decisions they make when configuring it?

A computer is just a tool. If a user allows me access to it I will,
with their permission, configure it any way I like.
Anyway I 'solved' my problem thus:

script
onload - div show

body
noscript
enable javascript

div - style hide
content
But of course it's not pretty with CSS disabled.

Andrew Poulos

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Xn********************@194.109.133.29>, dated Wed, 15
Dec 2004 18:28:50, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Evertjan.
<ex**************@interxnl.net> posted :

Dr John Stockton wrote on 15 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

For test purposes, if your browser is like mine, it suffices to put
<script>.</script>
on the test page before the other scripting, and to answer "No".

Nice idea.

H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately after a failing
script, which may be reasonable.

As scripting error is not the same as no scripting available:

<script>.</script>
<noscript>Doesn't show on IE6</noscript>

That is not necessarily not immediately after.

<script>.</script>
X
<noscript>Might show on IE6</noscript>
The logic might be that as the script was executed, an immediately
following NOSCRIPT should not be executed.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt> RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zip> Timo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>
, dated Wed, 15 Dec 2004 16:17:48, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript,
ap*****@hotmail.com posted :

What if a user does not read english?
If a user does not read English, the sooner he stops looking at my site
the better (except that there is some date material in presumably good
19th century German, and allegedly non-classical Latin).

Users should be spared technical details unless you're sure that they

are

capable of understanding them and that they need to know the

information.

Not so. A user can be told that "something" is needed, and he can then
ask "Where is a computer with 'something', or how can 'something' be
provided on this one".

What do you consider a technical detail? My mother wouldn't be able to
turn a computer on let alone use it.

In that case no such technical detail can possibly inconvenience her.

** The system that you were using mangles quoted text. Please use a
better one. ** (MW's right margin was large, but not unreasonably so)

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <opsi2bbtpwx13kvk@atlantis>, dated Wed, 15 Dec 2004
18:32:58, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Michael Winter <M.Winter@bl
ueyonder.co.invalid> posted :

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:16:26 +0000, Dr John Stockton
<sp**@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

H'mm - on my system, NOSCRIPT does not show immediately
after a failing script, which may be reasonable.

It never should. The contents of a NOSCRIPT element should only be
rendered if:

1) A browser doesn't support client-side scripting of any kind
2) A browser has been configured to ignore client-side scripts
3) A browser doesn't support the client-side scripting language used
by a previous SCRIPT element.

A failed script shouldn't result in the display of a NOSCRIPT element's
contents.

However, while a published page should follow all conventions and
standards, an author is perfectly entitled to make private use of any
properties of the systems in use whilst actually authoring.

But this is not just a failed script; it is a failed script, but a
failed script followed by a user request not to continue running scripts
on the current page.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)

[Evertjan.]

Dr John Stockton wrote on 16 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

<script>.</script>
<noscript>Doesn't show on IE6</noscript>

That is not necessarily not immediately after.

<script>.</script>
X
<noscript>Might show on IE6</noscript>
The logic might be that as the script was executed, an immediately
following NOSCRIPT should not be executed.

Could be but is not, John.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <Xn*******************@194.109.133.29>, dated Thu, 16
Dec 2004 23:40:57, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Evertjan.
<ex**************@interxnl.net> posted :

Dr John Stockton wrote on 16 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

<script>.</script>
<noscript>Doesn't show on IE6</noscript>

That is not necessarily not immediately after.

<script>.</script>
X
<noscript>Might show on IE6</noscript>
The logic might be that as the script was executed, an immediately
following NOSCRIPT should not be executed.

Could be but is not, John.

In that case at least one of us is confused about what at least one of
us means.

But, while authoring, use whatever works in the current browser; it will
not be in the public version.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
For news:borland.*, use their server newsgroups.borland.com ; but first read
Guidelines <URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html> ff. with care.

[Evertjan.]

Dr John Stockton wrote on 17 dec 2004 in comp.lang.javascript:

In that case at least one of us is confused about what at least one of
us means.

Agree.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)