SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    SitePoint Addict bronze trophy mawburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Do you still design with "No Script" in mind?

    Do you still design your websites and take users having Javascript disabled into context or do you place important needed features in Javascript without thinking twice?

  2. #2
    SitePoint Addict WolfShade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    266
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the user disables JavaScript, my code will break. If they are either A) so paranoid that they turn off JS due to security concerns, or B) malignant and disable JS to bypass client-side validation (I always use server-side as a backup), then it's no skin off my nose - the code will not work, not degrade gracefully, and it's not my concern.

    If they want to access my site/app, they'll enable JS. If they don't want to enable JS, they don't want to access my site/app. I'm okay with either scenario.
    V/r,

    ^_^
    WolfShade The Spamhater

  3. #3
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,177
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by WolfShade View Post
    If the user disables JavaScript, my code will break. If they are either A) so paranoid that they turn off JS due to security concerns, or B) malignant and disable JS to bypass client-side validation (I always use server-side as a backup), then it's no skin off my nose - the code will not work, not degrade gracefully, and it's not my concern.
    And what if (C) they are forced to keep JS disabled because of visual/perceptual/cognitive disabilities? So many sites these days seem to feel that sliders, videos and other moving images are a necessity - often multiple instances on the same page - and don't provide any simple means to disable the movement. The only alternative is to routinely disable JS as a form of self-defence.

    Quote Originally Posted by WolfShade View Post
    If they want to access my site/app, they'll enable JS. If they don't want to enable JS, they don't want to access my site/app. I'm okay with either scenario.
    If the site is unusable with JS disabled, I'll leave immediately. If I can access the site and make an informed decision as to whether (a) I actually need to enable JS to achieve what I want and (b) whether I'm likely to encounter any major problems by so-doing, then I'll go that far.

    Quote Originally Posted by mawburn View Post
    Do you still design your websites and take users having Javascript disabled into context or do you place important needed features in Javascript without thinking twice?
    It's probably superfluous to add that I use JS as little as possible in my sites, and where I do use it, I provide alternative content for those with JS disabled.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Addict bronze trophy mawburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    If the site is unusable with JS disabled, I'll leave immediately. If I can access the site and make an informed decision as to whether (a) I actually need to enable JS to achieve what I want and (b) whether I'm likely to encounter any major problems by so-doing, then I'll go that far.
    What are your reasons for disabling it? What "major problems" have you encountered in the past?

    How does Javascript effect your function on the web, with the ever growing use of single page applications? It seems that if you disable it, then you're really cutting out a very large portion of the internet and a good bit of the productivity enhancements. Take Stack Overflow for instance, it works with or without Javascript, but with JS it functions more like a single application than a website.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bluedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I always aim to build any site without any dependency on Javascript, then add JS as an enhancement, not something to rely on. Unless I'm instructed otherwise I tend to only use JS where absolutely necessary, I've built several sites recently where the only JS used if for analytics code.

    IMHO there's a lot of "new" designers who simply throw it all together with a ton of JS to make it look fancy, and without a care for the sites visitors. These people probably haven't heard of techniques such as image optimisation either

  6. #6
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,177
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mawburn View Post
    What are your reasons for disabling it? What "major problems" have you encountered in the past?
    Among other things, moving images cause problems for me. Depending on size, placement, number it may "simply" be that I'm unable to read the surrounding text, or it may cause nausea and dizzyness, etc. Multiple images which change on mouseover are also disorientating, although I tend to keyboard where possible, which helps to cut down on that problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by mawburn View Post
    How does Javascript effect your function on the web, with the ever growing use of single page applications? It seems that if you disable it, then you're really cutting out a very large portion of the internet and a good bit of the productivity enhancements.
    Depends on your perspective whether I'm "cutting out a very large portion of the internet", or whether a large portion of the internet is excluding me.

    Quote Originally Posted by mawburn View Post
    Take Stack Overflow for instance, it works with or without Javascript, but with JS it functions more like a single application than a website.
    As I said, I will enable JS where I feel there's a good reason, and provided that it has no adverse effects (for me) along the way. I use NoScript, so I can allow some scripts and not others, if I so choose. But it's a pain to have to go through that palaver.

    Discourse uses JavaScript extensively, and I initially found some aspects pretty hard to live with. However, both Discourse and the SitePoint team have made fairly small changes which have made a big difference from my point of view. I'm happy to enable JS where I can - it's just that so often, I can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by bluedreamer View Post
    IMHO there's a lot of "new" designers who simply throw it all together with a ton of JS to make it look fancy, and without a care for the sites visitors. These people probably haven't heard of techniques such as image optimisation either
    Yes, I think that's what the problem boils down to. You only have to look around the forums to find people advocating more videos, more slideshows/carousels, more "Web 2.0" features (whatever that means), generally more bells and whistles. Usability and accessibility no longer seem to matter in many quarters. And it's because of the bells and whistles brigade that I - and others with similar issues - have learnt to habitually disable JS.

  7. #7
    SitePoint Enthusiast volter9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    United States, CA
    Posts
    62
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Among other things, moving images cause problems for me. Depending on size, placement, number it may "simply" be that I'm unable to read the surrounding text, or it may cause nausea and dizzyness, etc. Multiple images which change on mouseover are also disorientating, although I tend to keyboard where possible, which helps to cut down on that problem.
    With CSS3 moving images can be implemented too, instead of old way with JS and setTimeout/Interval

    By the way, some applications like "brand new" HTML5 games can't work without JS.
    (about) 50% of HTML5 features uses JS (Canvas, WebGL, Video, File API, native Drop'n'Drag, etc.), so you're refusing out of these "deserts" and leaving yourself only with "main" dish.

    It's important to leave gracefully degradation, however, not every app can afford it.

  8. #8
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy bluedreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Middle England
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Yes, I think that's what the problem boils down to. You only have to look around the forums to find people advocating more videos, more slideshows/carousels, more "Web 2.0" features (whatever that means), generally more bells and whistles. Usability and accessibility no longer seem to matter in many quarters. And it's because of the bells and whistles brigade that I - and others with similar issues - have learnt to habitually disable JS.
    Even though carousels have been proved to be ineffective eh?

    Web2.0? Haven't you heard, people are touting Web3.0 now - eeeek!

  9. #9
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophy
    Rubble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, England
    Posts
    2,397
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    It's probably superfluous to add that I use JS as little as possible in my sites
    The same here; I use a Google map that uses JavaScript and on a new website I have to use it on one page as there is no workable alternative. My sites may not look "flashy" but they get the information across and last time I looked worked on the mobile devices I had access to without any special hacks. I try to stick to the KISS principle.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    277
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I tend to develop the core website with no Javascript. Part of the reason is mobile phones which can consume a lot more bandwidth when Javascript is enabled. Maybe that doesn't matter in America but its a concern here.

    Sent from my XT316 using Tapatalk 2

  11. #11
    SitePoint Enthusiast Strider64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    37
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I try to develop without JavaScript, but more and more I'm finding for what I need to do I need JavaScript enable. However, I let the user know if my website is 100 percent dependent on JavaScript by having a message "Sorry, but the website needs JavaScript Enable". Though if I had to develop a website for a client that needed graceful degradation, I could.
    http://www.jrpepp.com is a place to go for web design,
    web development and more!

  12. #12
    Just Blow It bronze trophy
    DaveMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Posts
    7,264
    Mentioned
    115 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwiheretic View Post
    Maybe that doesn't matter in America but its a concern here.
    It definitely matters here - there are a number of countries who get better/more bandwidth than most US carriers provide. Part of why I avoid most "streaming" services as much as humanly possible.
    Dave Maxwell - Manage Your Site Team Leader
    My favorite YouTube Video! | Star Wars, Dr Suess Style
    Learn how to be ready for The Forums' Move to Discourse

  13. #13
    SitePoint Mentor silver trophy
    Rubble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cambridge, England
    Posts
    2,397
    Mentioned
    81 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    there are a number of countries who get better/more bandwidth than most US carriers provide.
    I was surprised to see how bad broadband could be in America and the prices some companies charge.

  14. #14
    Life is not a malfunction gold trophysilver trophybronze trophy
    TechnoBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Argyll, Scotland
    Posts
    6,177
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiwiheretic View Post
    Part of the reason is mobile phones which can consume a lot more bandwidth when Javascript is enabled. Maybe that doesn't matter in America but its a concern here.
    It's a problem here, too. We have decent broadband, but the mobile coverage is pretty poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mobile Company Website
    On a phone you can expect to be able to use email and internet on our 2G network. However, speeds for downloading files and watching videos online will be slower than you might like.

    Using a laptop or tablet here to access the internet will be slow and isn’t recommended.

  15. #15
    SitePoint Addict bronze trophy mawburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    205
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bluedreamer View Post
    Web2.0? Haven't you heard, people are touting Web3.0 now - eeeek!
    I would say Web 3.0 is starting now. Single page apps that act more like locally installed programs than websites. Leverage more on the computer that probably isn't doing anything other than looking at your page, than on the server. Doing it this way really opens up a ton of possibilities and it's not tacked on like it was with Flash (not to mention proprietary). Going a little in reverse and letting the browser act like a remote terminal, than a text renderer but letting it do more of the processing at the same time.

    That article is almost comical. It reads like one of those "in the year 2000" articles from the 1950's.

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Among other things, moving images cause problems for me. Depending on size, placement, number it may "simply" be that I'm unable to read the surrounding text, or it may cause nausea and dizzyness, etc. Multiple images which change on mouseover are also disorientating, although I tend to keyboard where possible, which helps to cut down on that problem.
    Thank you. I never thought about it this way. You're probably the first person I've seen to have a legitimate reason, everything else I've ever seen was either paranoia (tracking stuff) or a leftover from the late 90's and early 2000s, where the only time you saw JS was when someone wanting a bunch of annoying tacky crap all over the screen.

    As @bluedreamer mentioned though, you're never really going to move away from the tacky misused overloaded crap though... because it's still here.

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Depends on your perspective whether I'm "cutting out a very large portion of the internet", or whether a large portion of the internet is excluding me.
    Not necessarily, I just think that the web is moving into a new direction. One of Jeff Atwood's responses to the Ruby criticism on Discourse was something along the lines of it didn't matter what the backend was because most of it was Javascript anyway. (I'm not going to quote him, because I forget his exact words)

  16. #16
    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 bluedreamer View Post
    Web2.0? Haven't you heard, people are touting Web3.0 now - eeeek!
    Web 3.0 is long dead. The last time I saw it referenced in a book was about six or seven years ago. I haven't seen any recent sites adopting it either - it was an extremely poor idea.

    As for assuming JavaScript is enabled - I have come across lots of sites that are broken when JavaScript is enabled because of the poorly written antiquated JavaScript it uses. Fortunately most of those sites will work with JavaScript off.

    As decent browsers allow you to enable/disable JavaScript on a site by site basis it is relatively easy to enable JavaScript for the sites that work properly and where JavaScript makes the site easier to interact with and disable it for all the sites that misuse it.

    It is not quite so easy to do but you can add your own JavaScript to your browser to disable all the antiquated commands that tend not to work properly. For example: I have the JavaScript in my browser set to strip out <noscript> tags (as they are long obsolete) and to override document.write() alert() confirm() and other obsolete commands so that they do nothing. That means that more sites actually work without having to actually disable JavaScript.
    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="^$">


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
  •