maybe i wasnt being clear - we were using browserhawk for other stuff (flash versions installed, OS, browser etc etc etc), and not to see specifically who had JS disabled...
the Javascript stat was just something that stood out and although it may seem backward, it may not be a matter of *needing* js to view flash content, but knowing JS is (pre3tty much always) availible means that you can code js calls in flash with a high level of confidence. On 4/9/06, Michael Bedar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While this is true, it seems very backward to need JS to view Flash > content... > > > On Apr 9, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Paul BH wrote: > > > I second what Steven says - to give you a bit of perspective, I worked > > on the relaunch of fhm.com about a year or so ago, and we looked into > > what implications there would be for requiring end users to have flash > > to be able to use the site. As part of this, we used a thing called > > browserhawk to understand what sort of systems people were looking at > > the site with. We ran it for 24 hours and got feedback from 75000 > > visitors to the site. Of those, only 3 had javaScript disabled... Only > > a snapshot of end users I know, but after that, I stopped worrying > > about users w/o js. > > > > > > > > On 4/9/06, Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> You also have to consider what users are turning off Javascript. > >> > >> First, Javascript is turned on by default. Second, you have to be > >> somewhat > >> savvy to know what Javascript is, much less turn it off, and also > >> know what > >> purpose turning it off serves. Third, you need to have a reason > >> to turn it > >> off. These things combined means that people who turn off > >> Javascript are > >> more than likely well aware of the consequences of this action, > >> it's not > >> just Flash that's effected. It's pretty much any plug-in and any > >> DHTML > >> site. Almost every site on the web uses Javascript now in some > >> form or > >> another. I wonder just how many people turn off Javascript and > >> are they > >> really worth going after? They obviously want a very limited and > >> controlled > >> web experience. > >> > >> It's like trying to advertise on cable television channels to > >> people who > >> only have antenna reception. You're just not going to reach that > >> very small > >> audience, so get over it. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> [email protected] > >> To change your subscription options or search the archive: > >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > >> > >> Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > >> Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > >> http://www.figleaf.com > >> http://training.figleaf.com > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > http://www.figleaf.com > > http://training.figleaf.com > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > _______________________________________________ [email protected] To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
