Comments on: Handling JavaScript-disabled Browsers http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/ Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:13:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: malikyte http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-202168 malikyte Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:28:17 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-202168 Thanks a lot, both brothercake and Kevin! Much appreciated! Thanks a lot, both brothercake and Kevin! Much appreciated!

]]> By: Kevin Yank http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-194337 Kevin Yank Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:24:10 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-194337 Peter Michaux has <a href="http://peter.michaux.ca/article/553" rel="nofollow">an excellent, up-to-date treatise</a> on how to get a script to run as early as possible, with maximum browser compatibility. It pokes a number of holes in Dean Edwards's script, and ends up using the DOM polling approach suggested by brothercake above, but with a number of smart optimizations inspired by the Yahoo! UI Library. Peter Michaux has an excellent, up-to-date treatise on how to get a script to run as early as possible, with maximum browser compatibility.

It pokes a number of holes in Dean Edwards’s script, and ends up using the DOM polling approach suggested by brothercake above, but with a number of smart optimizations inspired by the Yahoo! UI Library.

]]> By: brothercake http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-194333 brothercake Mon, 05 Mar 2007 05:19:09 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-194333 Dean's solution is neat, but it still leaves out browsers that aren't IE or Firefox/Mozilla (there are more than two browsers ;)) One other idea is to use a timeout based solution that checks for DOM readiness by testing for the existence of the body element [and any specific elements that are required] -- http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/scripts/domready/ But personally, I've pretty much given up on load-based scripting entirely - I just put <script> includes directly after the elements they affect, and initialise immediately. That way, the needed part of the DOM is guaranteed to exist, and the script initialises as soon as conceivably possible. Dean’s solution is neat, but it still leaves out browsers that aren’t IE or Firefox/Mozilla (there are more than two browsers ;))

One other idea is to use a timeout based solution that checks for DOM readiness by testing for the existence of the body element [and any specific elements that are required] — http://www.brothercake.com/site/resources/scripts/domready/

But personally, I’ve pretty much given up on load-based scripting entirely - I just put <script> includes directly after the elements they affect, and initialise immediately. That way, the needed part of the DOM is guaranteed to exist, and the script initialises as soon as conceivably possible.

]]> By: rmullins http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-193491 rmullins Sun, 04 Mar 2007 05:33:16 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-193491 good work, i like the idea of 'progressive enhancement'. good work, i like the idea of ‘progressive enhancement’.

]]> By: philwilks http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-191650 philwilks Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:10:47 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-191650 Cheers <strong>malikyte</strong>, that's really helpful. The solution to the JavaScript flash is a bit hacky, but is certainly worth the effort if the flash is noticable. Cheers malikyte, that’s really helpful.

The solution to the JavaScript flash is a bit hacky, but is certainly worth the effort if the flash is noticable.

]]> By: malikyte http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-191641 malikyte Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:58:38 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-191641 He mentioned the JavaScript DOM processing flash, not the CSS flash. There is a difference. The CSS Flash issue is discussed on the Sitepoint Forums under the Sticky FAQ topic. The JavaScript flash problem is discussed <a href="http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/09/busted/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You may also find <a href="http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2005/09/busted/" rel="nofollow">this article</a> a bit enlightening. He mentioned the JavaScript DOM processing flash, not the CSS flash. There is a difference. The CSS Flash issue is discussed on the Sitepoint Forums under the Sticky FAQ topic.

The JavaScript flash problem is discussed here. You may also find this article a bit enlightening.

]]> By: philwilks http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190669 philwilks Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:21:03 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190669 Unfortunately my audience is still 75% IE, but it's shifting quickly. Unfortunately my audience is still 75% IE, but it’s shifting quickly.

]]> By: Joan Molina http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190653 Joan Molina Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:47:34 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190653 <strong>richm:</strong> I agree with you. In the University where I work all the staff members user Mozilla/Firefox browsers. More than 200 people. I'm sure that the more users choose non IE-browsers the more probable it is that IE adheres to enhanced standards such as CSS3. richm: I agree with you. In the University where I work all the staff members user Mozilla/Firefox browsers. More than 200 people. I’m sure that the more users choose non IE-browsers the more probable it is that IE adheres to enhanced standards such as CSS3.

]]> By: richm http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190085 richm Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:48:53 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-190085 philwicks: Saying it's "no use" is ignoring the huge (and growing) number of us who are not IE sycophants. There ARE other browsers out there. philwicks: Saying it’s “no use” is ignoring the huge (and growing) number of us who are not IE sycophants. There ARE other browsers out there.

]]> By: philwilks http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-187795 philwilks Sat, 24 Feb 2007 07:47:02 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/02/23/handling-javascript-disabled-browsers/#comment-187795 <strong>joan.m:</strong> That sounds great, but if it's not supported in IE it's no use. joan.m: That sounds great, but if it’s not supported in IE it’s no use.

]]>