SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 69 of 69
  1. #51
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    ^ ... but for how long?

    muhahahahaha

    Damn, I'm going to have to redraw my Opera with, like, webkit colours or something :(

  2. #52
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I know this is an old thread but for anyone Googling we've started a project to try & answer this question:
    http://howmanyusershavejavascriptdisabled.com/

  3. #53
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,177
    Mentioned
    454 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Hi toni_b. welcome to the forums.

    That's an interesting project. I think sites like stat counter have stats like that, don't they?

    I was reading that the latest version of Firefox prevents users from disabling JS, which is a bad move IMHO.

  4. #54
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    How do you count people who have JavaScript turned on for some sites and off for others? The best browsers allow you to selectively disable or enable JavaScript on a site by site basis.

    I always have JavaScript disabled for all Google sites because their sites work better without JavaScript than they do with the garbage scripts that they use. I do have JavaScript enabled for most other sites but selectively turn it off for any site that is slow loading or where the scripts malfunction.
    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="^$">

  5. #55
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,157
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    How do you count people who have JavaScript turned on for some sites and off for others?
    ....
    I'm in that group. Similar to how I don't enable bandwidth devouring SWF/images/CSS unless I want them enabled, I "toggle" javascript on a site by site basis.

    If Firefox won't let me, I'll be using a different browser soon.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    This bug report explains. They hide the checkbox from preferences, forcing one to either use a plugin or crawl through :config each time.

    Worse really is how they goaded everyone into accepting automatic updates, claiming that "we'll keep your current settings as they were"... except, of course, if when they believe you're so stupid that you accidentally had it disabled all this time and oh, you couldn't possibly have meant that because you were not only dumb, but you somehow never noticed how most sites didn't even work at all. So they "fixed" that for you-- by changing your chosen settings. Oh but it's just this one time, we can still trust them. Like when they remove that "confusing" Properties option from the context menu for images. The hoardes of confused were breaking down the doors just begging Mozilla to relieve them of that impossible-to-understand Image properties option, which had bene in there from the beginning, and was echoed by all other browsers.

    I remember when Chrome didn't allow me to disable Javascript (you could start if from the terminal with the --disable-javascript option, but then couldn't switch it on). This was pretty much what kept me from using Chrome for anything other than webkit testing.

  7. #57
    Programming Team silver trophybronze trophy
    Mittineague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    West Springfield, Massachusetts
    Posts
    17,157
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Thanks for that Stomme poes, I saw mention that it will be back https://twitter.com/davidbruant/stat...15593141940224 which is a relief, I'd rather not toggle via about:config, nor use yet another addon.

  8. #58
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mittineague View Post
    I "toggle" javascript on a site by site basis.
    With Opera you don't need to toggle it on and off - you just set it the way you want for each site and it will turn itself on and off.
    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="^$">

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I hate how Opera does it: I have to, for each site, maintain some long list of domains which may or may not run Javascript.

    I mean, for any particular site I visit, Javascript may be running from ~ 5-10 domains, some of which are just subdomains of the site in question (so I usually want to run their scripts) to ad sites (who I usually don't), share-crap-plugins (don't), tracking (don't), and things like comments (maybe).

    I do agree with Mozilla that NoScript is an excellent plugin and usually very good for managing Javascript (esp per domain without explicitly maintaining white/blacklists). That way it keeps track of "lists" for me: If I go to some news site, and I want their JS on because otherwise their menu is garbage, but don't want disqus domains running because they slow everything down, but do want sidebar junk loaded dynamically from subdomain.site.com, but don't want anything from blahblahblah.facebook.com... all just by clicking, and override-able by clicking as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitt
    I saw mention that it will be back https://twitter.com/davidbruant/stat...15593141940224 which is a relief, I'd rather not toggle via about:config, nor use yet another addon.
    No, this is just as silly, now it's in the dev tools. Meh. Next thing you know they won't want us turning off images, cause hey sites look really bad with images blocked... fffffff.

  10. #60
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I hate how Opera does it: I have to, for each site, maintain some long list of domains which may or may not run Javascript.
    In addition to turning off JavaScript for specific sites I also put the JavaScript checkbox in the status bar to make it easy to turn JavaScript on and off as required.

    I have a small number of problem sites where JavaScript is permanently off (eg. Google) and turn it on and off as needed for other web pages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Next thing you know they won't want us turning off images, cause hey sites look really bad with images blocked... fffffff.
    Of course just as some sites are broken with JavaScript turned on there are also sites that never finish loading if you have images turned on and where you have to turn images off to be able to access the rest of the page.
    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="^$">

  11. #61
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally, I just ignore users who disable javascript. If you disable it, it's your problem.

  12. #62
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aaarrrggh View Post
    Personally, I just ignore users who disable javascript. If you disable it, it's your problem.
    Sounds like you don't know how to use JavaScript properly. Those people who are unable to have JavaScript enabled will tell all their friends how useless your site is.

    Presumably you don't want many people to visit your site and are not trying to sell anything or providing an essential service so that people can just go elsewhere. There will probably be many other sites similar to yours that are not broken for some visitors.
    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="^$">

  13. #63
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Sounds like you don't know how to use JavaScript properly. Presumably you don't want many people to visit your site.
    I know exactly how to use it and how to provide for users without javascript. I just think it's a waste of effort on javascript heavy sites.

    If I was working with an e-commerce site, I'd put the extra effort in, but for general interfaces that are javascript heavy, I don't see why I should cater for users that go out of their way to make their browsers not work properly.

    *Edit: By this I mean: I don't think it's worth spending a huge amount of extra effort for probably like 1-2% of users. Very few users disable javascript, and frankly I don't think it's generally worth supporting them.

    I also don't put any effort into supporting ie 6 or 7, and only put minimal effort into supporting ie 8.

    That way I get to focus on doing great things that work well for people who are not using broken software to browse my websites.

    **Edit 2: Pretty sure pinterest.com doesn't work at all with javascript turned off. They seem to be doing just fine.

  14. #64
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aaarrrggh View Post
    I know exactly how to use it and how to provide for users without javascript. I just think it's a waste of effort on javascript heavy sites.

    If I was working with an e-commerce site, I'd put the extra effort in, but for general interfaces that are javascript heavy, I don't see why I should cater for users that go out of their way to make their browsers not work properly.

    *Edit: By this I mean: I don't think it's worth spending a huge amount of extra effort for probably like 1-2% of users. Very few users disable javascript, and frankly I don't think it's generally worth supporting them.

    I also don't put any effort into supporting ie 6 or 7, and only put minimal effort into supporting ie 8.

    That way I get to focus on doing great things that work well for people who are not using broken software to browse my websites.

    **Edit 2: Pretty sure pinterest.com doesn't work at all with javascript turned off. They seem to be doing just fine.
    Don't worry about him. I try to argue that JavaScript is more then just eye candy to him but I give up and that's his opinion. For example, Google Doc is a great example of using JavaScript as a functionality then accessibility. I completely 100% agree with you and I believe you know how to code WELL in javascript.

  15. #65
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    For example, Google Doc is a great example of using JavaScript as a functionality then accessibility.
    There is a difference between a web site (which should be capable of functioning without JavaScript) and a web application such as Pinterest or Google Doc.

    Also you can have JavaScript perform extremely sophisticated things on a web page and still provide a clunky workaround for those who have JavaScript turned off. For those who don't have the option to turn JavaScript on simply having a way for them to use the site no matter how awkward compared to the JavaScript version that it is can prevent court cases and save millions.
    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="^$">

  16. #66
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    363
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    There is a difference between a web site (which should be capable of functioning without JavaScript) and a web application such as Pinterest or Google Doc.

    Also you can have JavaScript perform extremely sophisticated things on a web page and still provide a clunky workaround for those who have JavaScript turned off. For those who don't have the option to turn JavaScript on simply having a way for them to use the site no matter how awkward compared to the JavaScript version that it is can prevent court cases and save millions.
    Can you give any examples of court cases where people have been fined millions for sites that don't work with javascript disabled?

    I do agree with what you are saying about the distinction between web apps and websites by the way. If I'm working on an e-commerce site, as I've said, I will put the extra effort in. I'll also do it if the site only uses a bit of javascript, but I'm not going to a ton of extra effort if the site is complicated just for the sake of probably 1% of users who have javascript disabled.

    The amount of time and effort involved versus the amount of people who actually benefit from it is skewered too much.

  17. #67
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,888
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by aaarrrggh View Post
    Personally, I just ignore users who disable javascript. If you disable it, it's your problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by sg707 View Post
    I try to argue that JavaScript is more then just eye candy to him but I give up and that's his opinion. For example, Google Doc is a great example of using JavaScript as a functionality then accessibility. I completely 100% agree with you and I believe you know how to code WELL in javascript.
    It really depends why you are using Javascript. There are some things that just can't sensibly be coded without it – complex applications like Google Docs are a prime example. There is no practical way to make that kind of functionality without Javascript, and no-one is going to expect you to try. But there are lots of websites that don't have that excuse – they use Javascript for things that could perfectly well be written in HTML and fail to provide a fall-back option. As often as not, those features turn out to be mind-bogglingly irritating for a lot of users. The increasingly popular but festeringly annoying "eternal scroll" on social media sites and many comments pages is a prime example ... they are often broken in so many different ways, but site owners think they are cool so implement them without any consideration of their usability or accessibility. Even if you insist on peddling this kind of rubbish, to not even bother with a non-JS fallback is inexcusably arrogant.

    If you think it's OK to treat your (potential) audience with that kind of contempt then go right ahead, it's entirely your choice. But don't be surprised when it comes back to bite you. And with the increasing use of mobile devices, with varying levels of Javascript capability (but rarely the processor capabilty or battery life to survive it), bite you it will.

  18. #68
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall
    I also put the JavaScript checkbox in the status bar to make it easy to turn JavaScript on and off as required.
    That certainly sounds easier than what I'm doing: diving into preferences each time.
    I also have an issue on another machine where Opera since 12.14+ no longer seems to read the .opera .ini files, and so always loads all the defaults instead of remembering my settings. It's definitely a bug but it's not hitting all my copies of Opera, even with the same version number. Confuzling.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevieD
    The increasingly popular but festeringly annoying "eternal scroll" on social media sites and many comments pages is a prime example ... they are often broken in so many different ways, but site owners think they are cool so implement them without any consideration of their usability or accessibility.
    My boss is convinced that eternal scroll is good for e-commerce if the user is a woman because "women like to shop" (by "shop" he means browse and look at lots of things before looking further at any one product). This despite the fact that e-commerce has discovered that eternal scroll sucks for anything users are expected to do important interaction with. You can't search eternal scroll with your browser (and site search may or may not suck mightily). People lose their orientation and can't easily find products that mildly caught their eye earlier. The appearance of "too many choices" with nothing to separate them lowers people's buying intentions (as seen in the famous 30-types-of-jam study from Colombia university). Sites like Amazon have stuck to paged results for this reason; Etsy tried forever scroll and abandoned it due to decreased conversion (sales).

    For more passive things like reading tweets or facewaste "look here, yet another inspirational image of a bird/sunset/baby with a Bible/Ghandi/Chicken Soup quotation!" shares, eternal scroll is more palatable. Though it still sucks if you're required to build a web scraper :P Sometimes I wonder if it's used deliberately to force more developers to use their APIs to grab data.

    Re pinterest: I have this strange feeling that a broken Pinterest will cause much less wailing and gnashing of teeth than a broken e-commerce/government/traffic/news site will, regardless of reason.

    Support:
    Nowadays JS is pretty much either actually turned off, or the site serving it has broken (like Basecamp did), rather than devices not supporting it. Unless you're specifically dealing with mobile, where there's usually support but at a very high cost in terms of speed and battery life as StevieD said. What does this mean (besides the fact that asking mobiles to run a metric crap-ton of jQuery on each site is still really dumb)?

    It means we can now feel better about ourselves if we exclude a group of people based on how small their minority is, because the reason discrimination feels wrong to us is because people can't (usually and reasonably) change how they were born/where they came from/what they look like/etc. Someone turning Javascript off is seen as an action and a choice (even if they're only doing it out of desperation because you the developer made something break/annoying with it in the first place). Someone using a device that simply doesn't support it, less so, and there are simply fewer of those. Also the importance of what the web page/app/whatever does has changed over the years, as well as users' expectations. Of those who disable Javascript, most of them no longer reasonably expect sites to work, even in the (majority) cases where lack of some Javascript breaks all sorts of things the Javascript isn't actually needed for (see Basecamp case, or when hashbangs started getting popular and then whole sites died because retards forgot how to fall back to working-since-forever hrefs). BTW that's called laziness: even when there's a good case for Javascript being required, having a small failure somewhere should not cause great and terrible damage. It should simply break what broke. And that means, super-double-gasp, testing, which requires un-laziness. (yeah, I'm too lazy to look up the antonym)


    Quote Originally Posted by aaarrrggh
    Can you give any examples of court cases where people have been fined millions for sites that don't work with javascript disabled?
    I'll take an edjumacated guess, and say there are exactly 0.000 such cases. We're lucky enough to have a bit of law to use as a last resort to force large wealthy companies to take down their "no blind or deaf allowed" signs; asking for similar for an obscure-to-everyone-not-a-nerd technology would make a film possibly worthy of The Room.

    Besides, the argument is backwards: instead of not doing something costing someone a fine, it should be "doing X to increase conversions" instead. Making something break in fewer cases is logically better; you only need to know how much more money you would potentially earn so you can decide if it can exceed the developer costs.

    If your developers are getting paid peanuts because they're living in a developing country, then the calculation starts getting really easy.

    If, on the other hand, you're a (Ruby/node.js/coffeescript/noSQL/whatever-is-WEB-SCALE-today)-using non-profitable hip startup running on free Red Bulls, rockstar/ninja/whatever programmers and vulture capitalists, then it's probably a big "no". But this last group doesn't support IE, know how to write vanilla Javascript, or make anything accessible either.

  19. #69
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,812
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I'll take an edjumacated guess, and say there are exactly 0.000 such cases. We're lucky enough to have a bit of law to use as a last resort to force large wealthy companies to take down their "no blind or deaf allowed" signs; asking for similar for an obscure-to-everyone-not-a-nerd technology would make a film possibly worthy of The Room.
    The only situations I am aware of all settled prior to going to court and so there is no actual record of whether it was specifically JavaScript or some other accessibility problem that was determined to be why the site was unusable by the person taking the action. Also while figures into millions of dollars have been mentioned as the amount of the settlement but again since they never went to court, the actual settlements are unknown. All that is known is that after the settlements the sites each reworked their site to fix accessibility problems including making sure that the site was usable without JavaScript.

    That doesn't mean that there isn't the potential for someone to claim millions under anti-discrimination laws if a site that they should reasonably expect to be able to use is inaccessible to them because it doesn't work without JavaScript.

    Most sites only get away with being able to have a broken site for those with JavaScript turned off because there are plenty of alternative sites that provide the same thing and which actually test their web sites to make sure they work for all of their potential visitors. Those sites will of course get far more visitors than the broken ones.
    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
  •