Well, my employer has 1600 staff members browsing the web with IE6,
protected by a proxy that strips some (but not all) Javascript.
Considerably more than "12" people. Upgrading from IE6 is forbidden
because a couple of enterprise apps we use don't work in anything except
IE6.
But whatever. I disagree about "reasonable accuracy", but whatever.
"1-2% of Yahoo visitors block JS" doesn't translate across to any other
site.
Chetan Crasta wrote:
@David: I think it is established, with reasonable accuracy, that a
very small percentage (~1%) of surfers block Javascript. If somebody
wants to make sure that their site looks absolutely perfect to the 12
people that surf using Internet Explorer 6 with a Javascript blocking
proxy wearing tin-foil hats, that's their choice -- hats off to them.
As for me, I believe my energy is better spent making my webpages work
well for 99% of my sites visitors.
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM, david <gn...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Chetan Crasta wrote:
Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics,
Not for a site that's properly-designed in the first place.
usability
That is one point where JS can provide functionality.
and semantics of a site,
JS should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEMANTICS of a site. That should be in
the HTML where it belongs, NOT IN JS.
so it would be a pity if one disables it just to
avoid the odd bad apple.
There's a hell of a lot of "bad apples" out there - tons of malicious sites,
scammers even cracking into supposedly-trustworthy services like akamai.net
and planting attacks. So it's not the "odd bad apple."
I never had to disable Javascript because good content is found on
well-designed sites. The sites with the ugly Javascript are the ones
that I wouldn't visit more than once, with or without Javascript.
I've been on a number of sites where I had to disable their CSS so I could
read their content. Sadly, a number of those sites were the home pages of
web design firms!
~Chetan
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Christie Mason <cma...@managersforum.com>
wrote:
From: Chetan Crasta "About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled
(2% for Yahoo USA) "
[-CM-] % of Yahoo visitors disabling js canNOT be used to extrapolate %
of
all web users disabling js. I haven't visited Yahoo in years and I'm
sure
that's true of a large % of web users. I also suspect that the type of
visitor who would disable js is not the type of visitor that is attracted
to
Yahoo. Then there's information buried in the comments at
http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javas
cript-disabled/ that Yahoo redirects mobile users to a different page,
so
that also skews the results. Within my group of contacts, about 30%
block
JavaScript all the time, probably another 10%+ block js some of the time.
You'd have to dig into what % of your target market is also Yahoo
visitors
and only if that is a large percentage should Yahoo visitors be used an
indicator for % of your site's visitors will have js disabled. Web
visitors are not homogeneous.
But that's not all you should consider. Nothing on the web stays the
same.
All it will take is another widespread js security problem then % of
visitors disabling js would increase. Or maybe another popular mobile
device will ship with js disabled as default, or a browser with js
disabled
as a default, or who knows?
Christie Mason
--
David
gn...@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
______________________________________________________________________
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/
