on 29/04/02 2:46 PM, michael kimsal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Can someone point me to hardware that is still in active use that can't
> handle javascript?

what about a text-to-speech system??????  I also know that older pentiums
and macs REALLY chug to get through the 100's or 1000's of lines of
javascript for these dynamic menu's.

as you've pointed out below, the web reaches more than PCs now -- fridges,
hand-helds, phones, webTV, etc etc

i'm sure these are only a few of many examples of poor/no support.

> 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.

Corporate policy can mean many things.  Libraries, schools, net cafes and
the like all may choose such a security system, and are well within their

I don't believe the issue is about how rich or robust their experience may
be... it's about making sure that you don't turn away users in droves.  Why
would a e-commerce site (fighting for customers already) rely on something
like javascript for shopping carts and navigation systems???  It's like
putting a "no one shorter than 5'6" in height can enter our store" sign on a
shop window -- the result will be pissed off shoppers, and less sales.

I'm not saying we should forever be stuck in a world without javascript --
that's stupid -- the world DOES need to move forward.  But there's no way
I'd specifically make surfing difficult/impossible for non JS browsers.

Contingencies can be made via the use of <NOSCRIPT> tags and careful site

If a commercial web developer is making the decision to purposely turn away
or ignor non-JS users (or non-CSS, or netscape, or webTV, or whatever else)
without informing their client, then I believe they're providing a pathetic
web development service, and ultimately acting against the best interests of
the client.  I'm sure you could be sued for something liket hat too.

> 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.

Yes, I now design all images for at least 1000's of colours, but I'm not
even going to bother to ask where you magically found that 80% statistic...

However IMO your comparison is incorrect.  Thousands or millions of colours
will degrade to lesser capable systems without any work on your behalf...
1000's > 256 will just result in a blocky, dithered image on most systems
--  even 1000's > greyscale or even 2 colour (b&w) will usually degrade

With some quick testing/planning, you can avoid illegible images on almost
any platform.

However, with Javascript, that complex menu system won't be automatically
replaced with a non-JS one ... the browser will just ignore the code and
render the page without navigation.  Great!

It's simple.  Using JS content on any commercial website should not result
in users being turned away or unable to navigate the site.  It can be done,
and rather than being looked upon as a burden of development, it should be a
requirement for any website.

Justin French
Creative Director

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to