> From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-
> boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Jess Jacobs
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion around js-degradation options, and I'm
> wondering what people's approaches are. I've tried several over the
> years,
> and it's constantly evolving.
>
> A thought occurred to me recently:
>
> <noscript>
> <style>
> .nojs #content-packs { display: block; }
> </style>
> </noscript>
>
> could be placed within the document's head (or body, depending on the
> need)
> to provide some extra help to the nojs version. (nojs class is
> typically
> placed on the body, in this case.)
>
> 1. Does anyone see anything fundamentally wrong with this approach? (We
> could make this an include, as well, for good form, but I'm trying to
> stick
> to simple nuts and bolts here.)
>
> 2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior?
>
> The issue at hand is that a page is hiding/showing content divs based
> on
> click events, which clearly can't happen if the user's js is disabled.
> Business logic states that all content must be made visible on the page
> for
> a non-js user experience, and there can be no flash of the non-js
> arrangement while the js-enabled version is loading. That's a mouthful.
fwiw, I do not use <noscript> (I consider this bad practice). I use *JS* to
plug an ID on HTML and use that ID to style elements that need to be styled
only when JS is available.
For example:
#JS .myCoolBox {display:none;}
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
