SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which JS Library you prefer to use for creating desktop type web applications?

Voters
53. You may not vote on this poll
  • JQuery

    34 64.15%
  • YUI

    1 1.89%
  • Prototype

    1 1.89%
  • Ext JS

    11 20.75%
  • Moo Tools

    5 9.43%
  • DOJO

    2 3.77%
  • Mochikit

    0 0%
  • Other

    4 7.55%
  • Will create my own library

    8 15.09%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011
Results 251 to 262 of 262
  1. #251
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,810
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by igv View Post
    This is subjective. Some people could think if it's broken that it just something didn't work for them and no need to tell everyone about it. But if it's working and it's bad and not usable, they will tell that it's bad and not worth using it to others.
    It will still be fewer people telling others that it is bad than would otherwise be telling everyone that is broken.

    Also if it at least provides a method that can be used then you can't be taken to court for discrimination (or if you are you can show that you did provide them with the best you could). You wouldn't end up with a court outcome of being fined hundreds of thousands for discrimination and being forced to rewrite your code to add the non-JavaScript version in (which will be far more expensive to do afterwards than it would have been in te fiirst place). If it isn't a hobby site then not supplying a version that can be used by everyone quite probably is ia breach of discrimination laws.

    I guess it comes down to do you want to create a site that breaks the law.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  2. #252
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    It will still be fewer people telling others that it is bad than would otherwise be telling everyone that is broken.
    That's still your assumption that does not have any support behind it (at least it was not provided here).

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Also if it at least provides a method that can be used then you can't be taken to court for discrimination (or if you are you can show that you did provide them with the best you could).
    Well, if you want to provide it just to comply with a law, that's why you are ok with it being close to unusable. So, you can say that you support 100% users. But it does not change the fact that it's unusable to users and they will go for an alternative.

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    I guess it comes down to do you want to create a site that breaks the law.
    As far as know, there is nothing explicitly in the law about sites being illegal with javascript only (correct me again if needed, I'm not a lawyer).
    Otherwise all web apps (Facebook, Google, Zoho, etc.) are law breakers.

  3. #253
    Unobtrusively zen silver trophybronze trophy
    paul_wilkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    14,702
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by igv View Post
    But it does not change the fact that it's unusable to users and they will go for an alternative.
    I presume that you're meaning a desktop-based alternative? Because when scripting is not available to someone for a web-based interface there is very little other alternative available to them.
    Programming Group Advisor
    Reference: JavaScript, Quirksmode Validate: HTML Validation, JSLint
    Car is to Carpet as Java is to JavaScript

  4. #254
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    150
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pmw57 View Post
    I presume that you're meaning a desktop-based alternative? Because when scripting is not available to someone for a web-based interface there is very little other alternative available to them.
    Yes, I meant desktop alternatives.

  5. #255
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    As far as know, there is nothing explicitly in the law about sites being illegal with javascript only (correct me again if needed, I'm not a lawyer).
    Otherwise all web apps (Facebook, Google, Zoho, etc.) are law breakers.
    That likely depends very very much on what country you're in and what kind of site it is. I don't know Zoho but the other two aren't government sites and while they may be based in any particular country they are global in reach.

    But for instance if a Dutch government site wanted to do something like this, they would not be able to, because they need to pass some version of WCAG1 (and end of this year, WCAG2) where it doesn't say anything like "you must use code x" or "you may not use javascript" but instead users have to be able to Do certain things (it's open as to how you make it available and accessible to the users).

    If there wasn't a way to do whatever it was without JS then the idea would be scrapped and something else thought up. However a private business would (under current law) be free to implement any type of site with really any type of restrictions (you can state they must have Browser X, Plugin X, scripts, whatever).

    I'm sure you're aware of whatever laws affect whatever you're doing so I'd take Felgall's remarks as a reminder for maybe others reading the thread.

    That said, laws change and good developers consider the future with their projects along with all the other stuff they juggle.

  6. #256
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by igv View Post
    I do understand that. My point is that for most of desktop-like application on the web, there is desktop alternative that accessible, and this is what those people will end up using. Because they don't really gain anything from word processor which claims supporting non-scripting, but does not provide word processor functionality.
    I agree with this, but it's beyond the point. Why do people use web based word processors rather than desktop ones... collaboration, ease of distribution, etc. Desktop applications outstrip web based solutions in EVERY other respect (functionality wise), I would prefer to have something which maintains the collaboration and distribution abilities even if the functionality is impeded. It's all ensuring that a service is usable for all, even if you boost the quality of service in other respects. You could have a server-side script generate a text-box for every paragraph hidden with CSS only to appear when active (the pseudo class), that would allow people to preview the changes in the main window, make changes actively within it and granted the inner code would still be ugly and need tags, but it's better than nothing.

    PS: There's nothing in the law explicitly in relation to JavaScript support, however the ADA and DDA (anti-discrimination laws) explicitly mention that websites shouldn't discriminate against people with disabilities, and blocking the 10&#37; of people who can't make use of scripting does qualify as there's a proven link between JavaScript dependence and inaccessibility for the disabled. The laws were both founded upon Section 508 / Pas 78 which in turn were founded on WCAG which states in no lesser terms that alternatives to JavaScript MUST be provided due to screen reader issues (among other things). In a court of law having a site which violates WCAG (and ARIA in a web app) is enough to pass sentence, Target can vouch for that. All it needs is complaints from people who cannot use the site due to disability or non-function attributable to disability. I've researched heavily into accessibility law, and conviction is certainly possible in the USA, Canada, Australia, Western Europe and the UK and I wouldn't want to run the risk, especially with such a large number of people affected, 10% of potential users seems like blatant discrimination.

  7. #257
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:


    In a court of law having a site which violates WCAG (and ARIA in a web app) is enough to pass sentence, Target can vouch for that.
    Target was sued by an individual who claimed their site was "not accessible enough" and there was no sentence: Target settled out of court, iirc. If it had gone through, the question would not have been about any violation of WCAG or of section 508 (WCAG is not law and section 508 is sorta kinda vaguely based on it... check out michigan.gov to see a "508-compliant site" and unless they've changed it recently you'll prolly agree with me that it's not using many best practices... oh and parts of the nav don't work without JS). Section 508 still does not apply to commercial sites, only sites who receive or dole out federal monies, and only in the US and A.

    Instead the law the individual sued on was ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The ADA specifically mentions things in it. The Internet is not one of them. The case did not go through, and the law is unchanged. The case was brought in California which often has extra state-specific rules that are not national. If Target had been shown to have broken a California-specific version of the ADA which does mention the innernetz then it's still just California, not teh US and A. What people would like is a case that goes to the Supreme Court, where national law is judged, so a precedent is set (if they were to decide that the ADA somehow DOES include teh innernetz, or that it's somehow unConstitutional by NOT including the innernetz). And/or pressure added to legislature to amend the ADA law to include teh Innernetz.

    It is cool that NFB is paying for Target's web devs to get accessibility training though.

  8. #258
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Stomme, well in the UK (and in several parts of Europe including France, Germany and Italy - with their appropriate legislation) the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) explicitly has been changed to mention the internet (and I'm sure I've read about changes to the US legislation) to apply to making your site inaccessible to the disabled. And as the only Internet related measurements to what constitutes an accessibility violation are related to factors described in WCAG, in discussion with a Lawyer over here (along with stuff I've heard on a legal podcast in the states) it's been said that there would be due reasoning to implicate severe violations of those recommendations (endorsed by disability rights groups) as justification for the grounds of a lawsuit and effective proof of non-compliance. Of course this is all theory until it actually gets put into action but I've been told by a few legal professionals over the last year that anything which outright prevents people from accessing websites (aimed towards commercial or government bodies) could be deemed grounds for a lawsuit, and as JavaScript dependence has such a high rate of inexcusable denial, it could well be sufficient enough to follow through. As for WCAG itself, it's not a legal statute (of course) but it's a professional body publishing a document based on well founded research backed up by leading disability advocacy groups, independent usability research and it's provided in a fairly easy to understand format (well publicised), I can't see any justification why it can't be used towards evidence.

  9. #259
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Newlines, Alex, newlines...

    Off Topic:



    I was at a Fronteers meeting where the webrichtlijnen 2 were being discussed... which are Dutch web guidelines based mostly on WCAG1. Now they are revising to match WCAG2. At the meeting they mentioned that there is some Europe-wide movement to enact something like WCAG across Europe, though I was unclear if this would affect commercial or just governmental sites.

    I couldn't remember the name of the body in question, but while doing a half-hearted look for it, I found this, which looks pretty useful for any web dev who wants to know what's happening in the country his/her site will be used in: http://www.standards-schmandards.com...nt-guidelines/

    This looks VERY handy to have!


  10. #260
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Yea Stomme, Pas-78 I mentioned before, it's guidelines based upon WCAG which have been spoon-fed by disability rights groups to constitute a bridge between the web and the DDA. There's definitely the opportunity and enough supporting data to support that WCAG and it's attachments could be considered worthy of legal merit. Though it's interesting that website omits an important piece of legislation - The “Stanca Act”, or the Italian Approach for favouring disabled access to ICTs.

  11. #261
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Pas-78 is British. I meant, there's a standards-body or an up-and-coming standards body that's European that wants to consider a Europe-wide set of rules (getting them actually passed throughout Europe is another thing and I may be retired before that actually happens, lawlz).

  12. #262
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Oh cool, I didn't know they were an up-and-coming standards body for Europe (rather than individual laws for each country), I guess that is extra reason to ensure accessibility if there's both Europe standards and regional laws in unison... I would like to see accessibility in commercial sites an indisputable legal requirement.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •