Miguel Cruz wrote: >On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, michael kimsal wrote: > > >>Miguel Cruz wrote: >> >> >>>But take care - using JavaScript for site navigation is tricky business. >>>Some people don't use it, some people can't use it (not supported by their >>>browsers / hardware / corporate policy), and search engines certainly >>>won't follow those links. >>> >>> >>Can someone point me to hardware that is still in active use that can't >>handle javascript? >> >> > >Palm Pilot >Cell phones > > Those don't generally support HTML either, but some WML or something similar. Palm's proxy service for the palm vii would translate HTML on the fly to its own markup language.
Call me crazy, but I have this funny feeling most people doing the kind of projects where javascript menus are even a consideration aren't also doing cell phone work. >WebTV >Lots of public internet kiosks > > I don't think I've seen a kiosk in the past 2 years that, if it allowed public browsing, didn't allow javascript. The only time it appears to be non-functioning is in 'locked down' kiosks, and at that point I can't tell if javascript is 'disabled' or if the designers simply didn't use it (moot point at that stage anyway). > > >>Similarly, can someone point me to a company that specifically disables >>javascript as 'corporate policy'? Back in 96-97, the 'no javascript' >>argument held, and probably holds today some if you're targetting >>handhelds and other 'non standard' devices. But if someone specifically >>disables Javascript these days, a good portion of their web experience >>will not be as robust as it would otherwise be, and they probably won't >>notice that using your site is any worse than any other site. >> >> > >I've done consulting in bank and government offices where application >proxies filtered out JavaScript. Given its frequent role as an attack >vector, this struck me as only the tiniest bit paranoid. > > More than a tiny bit, imo. Any 'attack' worth its salt has been through outlook - people should spend more time filtering email with VB attachments than "javascript" in html pages. >Go to any of the truly major sites, the ones that depend on getting large >numbers of people in and have mastered the art of doing it gracefully, and >you'll see that they don't depend on JavaScript. Even Microsoft's own >MSNBC.com works fine without it. Likewise Yahoo, CNN, eBay, Amazon, etc. > > I'm more than aware of the approach of large players. I was not advocating using JS exclusively to the point of not working without it, but it seemed the advice was 'don't use it at all'. That's what I was getting from it before. MSDN, on the other hand, pretty much demands "latest IE" only or else nothing works - their prerogative to do so, I guess. > > >>IMO, it's now like targetting only websafe colors because some people >>might only browse in 256 colors. If they do that, about 80% of the >>web's content will look like crap anyway, and they won't specifically >>think my stuff looks all that much worse than anyone else's. >> >> > >With current versions of Netscape and Mac browsers, I frequently see areas >of flat (HTML-specified) color not matching non-web-safe GIF and JPEG >colors. This creates unsightly seams (like not wearing a panty-liner, I >guess). > > PNGs cause more problem, ime, than anything else because IE doesn't render them properly. BTW, did you mean 'current version' of NS as '4.7x' or '6.x'. Just curious what people mean by 'current' NS these days. :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
