JavaScript disabled - how likely?

[Mason A. Clark]

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

Mason C

[mscir]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

I don't know how accurate this is:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/February/javas.php

JavaScript Stats

Sun Feb 1 00:05:02 2004 - Wed Feb 25 20:55:03 2004 24.9 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 262730395 (94%)
Javascript <1.2: 439369 (0%)
Javascript false: 14202948 (5%)

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the viewer will
not have javascript?
It can happen and it will happen, so you should be prepared for it and
provide alternatives.
Anyone have data?

Anyone who claims to have reliable data (so-called "statistics") on this
subject is telling you plain lies. The Web's user structure is far too
volatile to make even reliable projections. What you can know for sure:
There are more than 0% and less than 100% of users who have support for
client-side scripting disabled, restricted to a certain extent, or use
UAs where that feature is not even present. YMMV.
PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

mscir wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

I don't know how accurate this is:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/February/javas.php

JavaScript Stats

Sun Feb 1 00:05:02 2004 - Wed Feb 25 20:55:03 2004 24.9 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 262730395 (94%)
Javascript <1.2: 439369 (0%)
Javascript false: 14202948 (5%)

There is no reliable way to determine the used JavaScript version,
and simple *access* data which claims to be statistics (but lacks
the most important features of such a work) for *one* site makes
exactly *none*, not even the slightest approximate argument for or
against JavaScript support, especially not for the whole World Wide
Web and all of its users. The above wannabe-stats are utter nonsense
and people who think that they can even draw conclusions from such
data, and plan implementation strategies that match reality to the
slightest, are fools.
PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

mscir wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

I don't know how accurate this is:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/February/javas.php

JavaScript Stats

Sun Feb 1 00:05:02 2004 - Wed Feb 25 20:55:03 2004 24.9 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 262730395 (94%)
Javascript <1.2: 439369 (0%)
Javascript false: 14202948 (5%)

There is no reliable way to determine the used JavaScript version,
and simple *access* data which claims to be statistics (but lacks
the most important features of such a work) makes exactly *none*,
not even the slightest approximate argument for or against JavaScript
support, especially not for the whole World Wide Web and all of its
users. The above wannabe-stats are utter nonsense and people who
think that they can even draw conclusions from such data, and plan
implementation strategies that match reality to the slightest, are fools.
PointedEars

[Ivo]

"mscir" <ms***@access4less.net> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

I don't know how accurate this is:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/February/javas.php

JavaScript Stats

Sun Feb 1 00:05:02 2004 - Wed Feb 25 20:55:03 2004 24.9 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 262730395 (94%)
Javascript <1.2: 439369 (0%)
Javascript false: 14202948 (5%)

This number of 94 bears a close resemblance to my server log files.
Ivo

[Kevin Scholl]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

There really is no such thing as reliable statistics of any kind for the
Web, at least not on any far-reaching scale. The best you can do is
monitor the client's logs, and adjust accordingly on a project by
project basis.

That said, my views on the use of Javascript are thus:

Some people are vehemently against using Javascript of any kind,
particularly for navigation. However, with the proliferation of DHTML
and similar enhancements which utilize JS, I'm of the firm belief that
anyone who turns it off (it is on by default in all remotely significant
browsers) misses out on a lot the Web has to offer. The purported
security danger of Javascript is in and of itself largely nonsense, with
no technological basis. The only remotely logical reason to turn JS off
is to avoid pop-ups, but all major browsers now have the ability to do
so without compromising Javascript (such controls are built-in to the
user preferences of most the browsers, and available as small, simple
add-ons for others).

The important issue is accessibility; that is, if the user doesn't have
Javascript on, can they still get around the site (albeit perhaps not as
conveniently). I've found that simple text links, or even just a link to
an all-inclusive site map, in the footer of each page suffices. Another
means I use is an index page which notifies a user if they do not have
scripting turned on, and explains to them the benefits and (false)
dangers. They then have the option of accessing the site anyway, with or
without JS. If a user has JS on, they are automaitcally redirected into
the site, and never see the interim page.

That all said, I've never -- knock on wood -- gotten a complaint from a
user on any of my navigation schemes or the alternatives I've provided,
or on my use of Javascript in general. Opinions and mileage may vary,
though, as this is base don my personal experience and observations.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

================================================== ====
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
================================================== ====

[Stuart Palmer]

Rule of thumb, always try and provide a non JS dependant user functional
site. Yes, have JS in place, but try to offer the non JS option like putting
<a href="blah.html" target="_blank"
onMouseOver="window.open('blah.html');">Link</a> this will work for both JS
and non JS users.

Stu

"Mason A. Clark" <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote in message
news:le********************************@4ax.com...

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

Mason C

[Richard Cornford]

Mason A. Clark <le********************************@4ax.com> wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

If you have only one viewer then it would be quickest to ask him/her. If
you have a reasonable number of viewers then the chances of the site
being visited by a javascript incapable/disabled browser are 100%.

If you are looking for someone to pat you an the back and say that it is
OK to produce a javascript dependent web site because only a tiny
percentage of people don't use javascript and they are not really your
problem, then you will find such people. They don't have any more reason
to believe that that is true than you have for believing them when they
tell you it.

You will find "web statistics" everywhere. What you will not find is any
information about how those statistics are gathered, form whom and how
they were analysed. Certainly not enough information to make any
assessment of the validity of those statistics.

It is known that there are significant restrictions on what is
achievable when attempting to gather statistics about web usage. One of
the biggest restrictions being web cache systems that mean any HTTP
request may not even get to the server it is directed towards if an
intervening cache has a non-expired copy of the requested resource
available, so where is the log entry for that request? But there are
plenty of other significant restrictions in what information can be
gathered.

Web statistics produce a viscous circle. Only the people who believe
that the statistics are meaningful/useful contribute to those
statistics, the people who don't believe that meaningful general web
statistics can be gathered don't bother. But the people who believe the
statistics are meaningful allow those statistics to influence their
behaviour and create web sites that pander to whatever majority those
statistics indicate, creating IE specific and JS dependent sites.
Visitors to those sites using other browsers and JS disabled/incapable
browsers do not hang around on those sites clocking up hits because it
instantly becomes clear that they are wasting their time, and they do
not make repeat visits. The resulting logs reflect this in reporting a
very low percentage of visitors with non-IE and JS disabled browsers and
those logs are used to contribute to the gathering of the reported
statistics. Showing the resulting bias towards JS capable recent IE
versions.

So do the reported web statistics do any more than reflect the
consequences of the belief in the validity of those statistics? That
would make them nothing more than a chimera.

There are people who believe the statistics because they "sound right",
and we probably can be confident that the majority of the world's
desktop computers are indeed running a MS Windows OS and do have IE
installed and that IE is the web browser being used to access the
Internet. But statistics are not meaningful just because they "sound
right". Just because a majority of IE is expected does not mean that 95%
is the actual number.

I am often reminded of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New
Clothes" when people start talking web statistics; stop believing and
what remains? But so many web development decisions seem naked without
them.

Two javascript statistics that I have noticed over the past months
probably best describe the situation: The first from the logs of someone
who freely admitted that because of browser usage and JS statistics they
had created a site that was both IE specific and JS dependent. They were
apparently getting 2% of visitors without JS (and 4% without IE).

The organiser of the second site, dedicated to HTML authoring and
directly promoting universal accessibility, but without a doubt a
specialist interest site, reported 80% JS incapable/disabled visitors.

(Neither went into any details on how those figures had been derived.)

The bottom line truth is that you just cannot tell how many visitors
will (or would have, all else being equal) visited a site with JS
disabled or incapable browsers. You can be certain that it will be more
than none and probably less than all. But is doesn't matter as there is
a considerable amount that can be done with javascript in a way that
enhances a web site without imposing any dependency upon javascript. It
is just a matter of designing the HTML, CSS and javascript from the
outset with an appreciation of the need for clean degradation in the
optional technologies. Its not an easy design task, and many will seek
any excuse to avoid it, but once the challenge has been risen to the
results can be very rewarding.

Richard.

[Mick White]

Richard Cornford wrote:

....

The bottom line truth is that you just cannot tell how many visitors
will (or would have, all else being equal) visited a site with JS
disabled or incapable browsers. You can be certain that it will be more
than none and probably less than all. But is doesn't matter as there is
a considerable amount that can be done with javascript in a way that
enhances a web site without imposing any dependency upon javascript. It
is just a matter of designing the HTML, CSS and javascript from the
outset with an appreciation of the need for clean degradation in the
optional technologies. Its not an easy design task, and many will seek
any excuse to avoid it, but once the challenge has been risen to the
results can be very rewarding.

Richard.

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of browsers have
javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and inspect every
one of them.

Mick

[Richard Cornford]

Mick White <yx*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.
When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible task.
One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and
inspect every one of them.

Some points (off the top of my head):-

1. Given a global Internet with hundreds of millions of users that
number should be better described as "very large" if the results
are going to be statistically valid. There would also have to be
a global distribution of sampling and that sampling would have to
be done within a limited time frame.

2. Not all web browsers are running on desktop computers and the ones
running on mobile and portable devices might not be that easy to
track down.

3. What assumptions would be made about computers with multiple
browsers installed. Mine, for example, has 24 browsers on the
partition that it is currently booted from and another 30 odd on
the other two bootable partitions. Some have never even seen the
Internet, others get used for browsing all the time. Not
necessarily a common case but with IE so heavily integrated into
the operating system it is unlikely not to be present on a Windows
box, so would the presence of another browser be an indicator of a
user's preference for that browser? And then, which user, in a
family or business context, and what proportion of the internet
access from that box is accounted for by each and any user of any
preferred browsers?

4. Does a browser that is JS enabled at the time of sampling always
get operated with JS enabled, when it can be as easy as hitting a
key on the keyboard to toggle JS support on and off?

It may be theoretically possible (if impractical) to sample a
sufficiently large quantity of Internet accessing hardware across the
globe within a suitable period but the results of such a survey would
not tell you how the internet was used. It would be answering the wrong
question.

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Mick White wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:

....

The bottom line truth is that you just cannot tell how many visitors
will (or would have, all else being equal) visited a site with JS
disabled or incapable browsers. You can be certain that it will be more
than none and probably less than all. But is doesn't matter as there is
a considerable amount that can be done with javascript in a way that
enhances a web site without imposing any dependency upon javascript. It
is just a matter of designing the HTML, CSS and javascript from the
outset with an appreciation of the need for clean degradation in the
optional technologies. Its not an easy design task, and many will seek
any excuse to avoid it, but once the challenge has been risen to the
results can be very rewarding.

Richard.

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of browsers have
javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and inspect every
one of them.

I have access to "inspect" over 300 computers, none of which are running
IE as the default browser, and none of which are setup with javascript
enabled by default. Does that mean I can assume that 0% of the web uses
IE or Javascript enabled browsers?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Mick White]

Richard Cornford wrote:

<snip>

It may be theoretically possible (if impractical) to sample a
sufficiently large quantity of Internet accessing hardware across the
globe within a suitable period but the results of such a survey would
not tell you how the internet was used. It would be answering the wrong
question.

Richard.

Agreed, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But my shackles rise at
the utterance of the word "impossible".
Capisce?
Mick

[Mick White]

Randy Webb wrote:

....

I have access to "inspect" over 300 computers, none of which are running
IE as the default browser, and none of which are setup with javascript
enabled by default. Does that mean I can assume that 0% of the web uses
IE or Javascript enabled browsers?

You could assume that, but you'd be wrong.
Mick

[Dennis M. Marks]

I have read the following message from Mick White
<mw******@BOGUSrochester.rr.com>
and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.

The writer said:

Richard Cornford wrote:

...

The bottom line truth is that you just cannot tell how many visitors
will (or would have, all else being equal) visited a site with JS
disabled or incapable browsers. You can be certain that it will be more
than none and probably less than all. But is doesn't matter as there is
a considerable amount that can be done with javascript in a way that
enhances a web site without imposing any dependency upon javascript. It
is just a matter of designing the HTML, CSS and javascript from the
outset with an appreciation of the need for clean degradation in the
optional technologies. Its not an easy design task, and many will seek
any excuse to avoid it, but once the challenge has been risen to the
results can be very rewarding.

Richard.

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of browsers have
javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and inspect every
one of them.

Mick

and my reply is:
I'll bet that 99% of adult users do not even know what javascript is.
So why would they turn it off, even if they knew how to?

Even knowing what javascript is, why turn it off other that to stop
popups?

--
Dennis M. Marks
http://www.dcs-chico.com/~denmarks/
Replace domain.invalid with dcsi.net
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Richard Cornford]

Mick White <1G*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

... . But my shackles rise
at the utterance of the word "impossible".
Capisce?

A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible", or
the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
"not").

Richard.

[kaeli]

In article <c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk enlightened us with...

Mick White <1G*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

... . But my shackles rise
at the utterance of the word "impossible".
Capisce?
A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible", or
the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
"not").

Richard.

From your post Message-ID: <c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
-------- Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible task.
--------

I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a task
that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

--
--
~kaeli~
When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Mick White]

kaeli wrote:

In article <c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>,
Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk enlightened us with...

Mick White <1G*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

... . But my shackles rise
at the utterance of the word "impossible".
Capisce?
A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible", or
the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
"not").

Richard.

From your post Message-ID: <c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
--------

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible task.
--------

I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a task
that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

Well, it sounds good, but it's circuitous reasoning. But the tenor of
the argument is that we can never know the true percentage. To this I
offer a tried and true cliché: Never say never.
"What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"
Mick 2004

[Richard Cornford]

kaeli <MP************************@nntp.lucent.com> wrote:

Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk enlightened us with...

Mick White <1G*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

> ... . But my shackles rise
> at the utterance of the word "impossible".
> Capisce?
A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible", or
the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
"not").

From your post Message-ID: <c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk>
--------

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible
task.
--------

I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a
task that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

But the message that inspired Mick White to propose his computer
sampling strategy was:-

< news:c1*******************@news.demon.co.uk >

- which apparently did not contain the word "impossible" and so should
not have raised shackles (hackles? - <self>assumes typo).

OTOH it is, for all practical purposes, an impossible task.

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Mick White wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

....

I have access to "inspect" over 300 computers, none of which are
running IE as the default browser, and none of which are setup with
javascript enabled by default. Does that mean I can assume that 0% of
the web uses IE or Javascript enabled browsers?

You could assume that, but you'd be wrong.

Of course I would be. And thats the fallacy in any attempt to determine
what percentage of browsers are in fact IE and how many of them have
javascript enabled or present.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

There really is no such thing as reliable statistics of any kind for the
Web, at least not on any far-reaching scale. The best you can do is
monitor the client's logs, and adjust accordingly on a project by
project basis.

And what would that accomplish? If you create JavaScript-only sites,
you will only log users with enabled JavaScript support. Think twice.
PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Stuart Palmer wrote:

Rule of thumb, always try and provide a non JS dependant user functional
site. Yes, have JS in place, but try to offer the non JS option
Full ACK
like putting
<a href="blah.html" target="_blank"
onMouseOver="window.open('blah.html');">Link</a> this will work for both JS
and non JS users.
It will, but it is suboptimal anyway. Rules of thumb:

1. Never force new windows upon users if not required.
2. Always cancel events if they are triggered by common behavior.
3. Never use meaningless captions for links, like "here".

So use

<a href="blah.html">Meaningful caption</a>

or

<a
href="blah.html"
target="_blank"
onclick="window.open(
this.href, this.target, '...,resizable,scrollbars,...')"Meaningful caption</a> [Appended fullquote]

Please do not do that, it is nonsense in the
context of an easily followable discussion.
PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

[...] Rules of thumb: [...]
2. Always cancel events if they are triggered by common behavior.
[...]
<a
href="blah.html"
target="_blank"
onclick="window.open(
this.href, this.target, '...,resizable,scrollbars,...')"

>Meaningful caption</a>

Grmbl. Of course it should have been

<a
href="blah.html"
target="_blank"
onclick="window.open(
this.href, this.target, '...,resizable,scrollbars,...');
return false"Meaningful caption</a>

PointedEars, ready for bed

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Dennis M. Marks wrote:

I have read the following message from Mick White
<mw******@BOGUSrochester.rr.com>
and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.
Please do not write attribution novels, thanks.
The writer said:
To be exact, the writer _wrote_. To be exact. And a proper
attribution line would tell the reader concisely who is the
author of the quoted text.
[...]
Fullquotes are not recommended as well.

<http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html>

Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of browsers have
javascript disabled. It's just not practical.

One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and inspect every
one of them.
[...]

and my reply is:
I'll bet that 99% of adult users do not even know what javascript is.

You'll lose.
So why would they turn it off, even if they knew how to?
Because they find their resources as precious as I find them.
Even knowing what javascript is, why turn it off other that to stop
popups?

Security reasons. Sounds silly, because J(ava)Script itself has AFAIK
no known security leaks, but it provides access to APIs that either have
such or can be exploited that way.
PointedEars

[Richard Cornford]

Mick White <Zo******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

"What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"

That is simply not true. For example, it is not, and never will be,
possible for matter to achieve a velocity that exceeds the speed of
light. That restriction is fundamental to the nature of the universe.

If you change the frame of reference and ask if it is possible for
matter to move between to points in space in less time than it would
take light to travel the intervening distance then that may well be
possible. Current suggestions centre around possible methods of getting
from point A to point B without going through the intervening space. And
so there is no need for any matter to achieve a velocity greater than
the speed of light; the fundamental restriction inherent in the nature
of the universe is side-stepped.

A similar situation applies to the gathering of meaningful web
statistics. Some of the significant restrictions are inherent to a
global network operating on HTTP protocols. Gathering meaningful
statistics from such a network is impossible and will remain impossible.

That doesn't mean that there could not, at some future time, be a global
network that did facilitate the constant, comprehensive and accurate
monitoring of everyone that connected to it. I can't see that being a
popular change in our current cultural climate but it is not impossible.

But in the same way as I will not be proposing that people review their
footwear budget in light of the possibility of commuting by wormhole, I
will not be recommending that they give credence to current web
statistics because they may some day be gathered from a global network
that facilitates their accuracy.

Richard.

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

"Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litotes.demon.co.uk> writes:

Mick White <Zo******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>

"What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"
That is simply not true.

I concur. Either it is impossible or it isn't. If it is possible
tomorrow, then it is also possible today (we may not know *how* to do
it, but it is still possible).
For example, it is not, and never will be,
possible for matter to achieve a velocity that exceeds the speed of
light. That restriction is fundamental to the nature of the universe.
.... if our current model of the universe is correct.
We might not know how to do it, and even believe that we can't,
but when, tomorrow, we discover the ultra heavy tachyon, we'll
have to admit that it was possible after all. And revise our
physical laws to match the new measurements.

Not that I think that it will happen, but I can't guarantee that it is
impossible.

It is impossible to find a predicate in a consistent logical system
that is both true and its negation is also true. It is impossible
today, and it will also be impossible tomorrow (because of the
definition of consistent)
A similar situation applies to the gathering of meaningful web
statistics.

Independent of the physical analogy, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[George Jempty]

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

Mason C

Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10% of
viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something, this
is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that gives
the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.

Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics", a word that
doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to ignore
the users that don't have Javascript....', etcetera.

Other "responders" descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take it
to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup. alt.buffoonery is
my suggestion.

[Randy Webb]

George Jempty wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the viewer will
not have javascript? Anyone have data?

Mason C

Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10% of
viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Your "site" that you cite is totally useless. If you had bothered to
read, and attempt to understand, the other replies in this thread you
would know why.
Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something, this
is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that gives
the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.
Huh? They asked a question about how likely something was, and then got
answered. Web stats are *useless*.
Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics", a word that
doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to ignore
the users that don't have Javascript....', etcetera.
Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.
Other "responders" descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take it
to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup. alt.buffoonery is
my suggestion.

Are you actually as stupid as you act? Or did you change your last name
from Hester?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Randy Webb <hi************@aol.com> writes:

George Jempty wrote:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.

For a statistics page, I think it is rather good. Especially the part
below the header "Statistics Are Often Misleading" :)

Ofcourse the statistics of this page is skewed by its content. It is
about web development, so web developers are more likely to frequent
it. I believe web developers are also more likely to use an
alternative (read: non-IE) browser, since they are by necessity aware
of them. Too bad, because I liked the numbers (Opera steadily
increasing, now at 2.2%, and IE only at 80%).

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[George Jempty]

Randy Webb wrote:

George Jempty wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the viewer
will not have javascript? Anyone have data?

Mason C

Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10%
of viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Your "site" that you cite is totally useless. If you had bothered to
read, and attempt to understand, the other replies in this thread you
would know why.

Read the linked page. It has its own disclaimer about stats.

Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something,
this is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that
gives the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.

Huh? They asked a question about how likely something was, and then got
answered. Web stats are *useless*.

The OP asked for data, not stats

Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics", a word that
doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to
ignore the users that don't have Javascript....', etcetera.

Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.

What's utterly useless. A browser on a MAC. Or a MAC itself?

Other "responders" descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take
it to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup.
alt.buffoonery is my suggestion.

Are you actually as stupid as you act? Or did you change your last name
from Hester?

Hmmm. Get personal? Or do something to actually improve the abysmal
noise to signal ratio? Screw the people who come to this newsgroup for
a little guidance: let's get personal instead!!

[Richard Cornford]

George Jempty wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

George Jempty wrote: <snip>

Read the linked page. It has its own disclaimer about stats.
It does indeed and it illustrates many of the points already made in
this thread. To quote it:-

|<URL: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp >
| Statistics Are Often Misleading
|
| You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics.
| Statistics can often be misleading.

The absolute statement that statistics cannot be relied upon if offset
slightly by stating that they can be misleading. That implies that it is
failure to properly interpret on the part of the individual mislead that
is the problem instead of the impossibility of gathering meaningful
statistics. A more hones disclaimer would just read "There statistics
are inaccurate", which would remove the potential for them being
misleading as nobody would even consider drawing conclusion from them.

| Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site.

Not that they are claiming that these are global averages.

| Different sites attract different audiences.
| Some web sites attract professional developers using professional
| hardware, other sites attract hobbyists using older low spec
| computers.

| Also be aware that many stats may have an incomplete or faulty
| browser detection.

To say "may have an incomplete or faulty browser detection" is a bit of
an understatement as we know that server-side UA header information is
next to useless for browser discrimination and that client-side browser
detecting is almost as inaccurate. We can also be certain that whenever
client-side scripting is disabled the only browser detecting strategy
available is the server-side UA header reading.

| It is quite common by many web stats report programs,
| not to detect new browsers like Opera and Netscape 6
| or 7 from the web log.

And it is almost certain that IceBrowser, Web Browser 2 and any other
browsers that put some effort into spoofing IE will be lumped in with
the IE statistics.

| (The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files,

All else being equal, given the disclaimer above about different sites
attracting different audiences, admitting that there statistics are
derived directly form the logs of one site would suggest that, even if
accurate, they should only be of significance to the organisers of that
site.

| but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet
| to assure the quality of these figures)

Meaning that if our statistics resemble other statistics they must be of
similar quality. Which doesn't make them good quality statistics, more
it demonstrates that the factors that render any individual statistics
gathering endeavour meaningless apply equally and similarly to them all.
Which is the main thrust of the entire thread.

As with all published web statistics, there is a distinct lack of detail
about how the statistics have been gathered and analysed. Browser
detection figures, for example, really should be accompanied by the code
used for testing else it is not possible to tell how the more difficult
to identify and spoofing browsers will be reported. Questions like
whether the logging is done from one HTML page or many. Or are images
used in the logging (with the obvious implications for the reporting of
browses incapable of showing images, or with image display disabled).
And, if images, then client-side Image objects or HTML IMG elements.

Without the details of what is being measured and how that is being
done, even without the problems inherent to the network, the results can
be nothing more than labelled numbers. Any meaning that could be
attached to them could only exist in the mind of the reader, and as a
result they can be nothing but misleading.

Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the
sorry state of c.l.js. At the time of this posting,
unless I'm missing something,
Possibly you are missing the distinction between a Usenet discussion
group and a help desk.

It is an important distinction because if the group allowed itself to
descend into becoming a vending machine for quick fix code we would be
no better than the many appalling copy-and-paste script collections that
exist. Instead of working to expand an appreciation of the skill-set
needed for effective cross-browser script design and implementation we
would be actively contributing towards making the Internet worse for
everyone.

If you consider that c.l.j should be churning out ill-considered quick
fixes in response to posted questions without even mentioning the issues
let alone addressing them, then nobody can stop you. But such postings
will (should) attract comment.

A couple of months ago, after commenting on such a posing, I received
the reply "My proposal is not a solution for the actual problem.". How
was the OP going to appreciate that if they were unable to solve the
problem without assistance? Should his post have gone uncommented and
the issues unmentioned? The real problem was with server-side code that
hadn't been designed to work with its interface over HTTP, and there
were no client-side solutions. Any javascript proposal would have been
bad and, even if reliable, would have been solving the wrong problem.
this is only the third or
fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that gives the OP
the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.

If you ask questions of honest, responsible people with no vested
interest they are likely to tell you what they think you need to know,
that is not necessarily always what you want to hear.

I also thought that the OP was looking for something beyond the rather
trivial question asked. My impression was that it was an attempt to
justify or refute some sort of design decision. Insofar as providing
references to "data" goes, beyond the truth that a public web site with
any significant number of visitors will get visited by javascript
incapable/disabled browsers, there is no "data", just bogus statistics.
So it makes more sense to explain why there is no factual information on
the subject and that design decision really should not be cloaked in
"information" that is known to be inaccurate, they should be made to
stand (or fall) on their own.

<snip> The OP asked for data, not stats

Then why did you post the URL of a page with nothing more than labelled
numbers?

<snip> Are you actually as stupid as you act? Or did you
change your last name from Hester?

Hmmm. Get personal? Or do something to actually improve the abysmal
noise to signal ratio? Screw the people who come to this newsgroup
for a little guidance: let's get personal instead!!

If you are going to derogate the entire group (and therefor anyone who
participates, especially regularly), your position in that one to many
relationship will mean that any response you induce will be directed at
you personally. (Granted comparisons with George Hester cannot be
intended to do other than offend but implying responsibility for a
"sorry state" or an "abysmal noise to signal ratio" should be expected
(maybe, was intended) to antagonise.)

Richard.