On 06/14/2002 01:08 AM, Justin French wrote:
> Interesting, but these stats only indicate what *browser* has been used...
> not if JS was enabled/disabled.
> case 1: user gets sick of pop-ups and crap, turns off JS on their browser
> (sure, it's in their control)
> case 2: paranoid sys admin disables JS on all browsers in a school / library
> / cafe / organisation (it's out of the user's control)
> case 3: JS is accidently turned off by someone who doesn't have a clue what
> it all means, or they've cranked their security setting through the roof.
> There are many more.

In theory yes, but in practice I doubt that a significant number of 
users with Javascript enabled browser will really disable it for a long 
time because soon or later they find that many of the sites that they 
really want to access rely on Javascript to work right.

Even the increasingly popular Flash based sites rely on Javascript to 
detect if the browser has the Flash plug-in installed.

Anyway, if you believe that the number of users that turn-off Javascript 
is significant, where is the evidence of that?

>>This is a site for geeks/hackers. In a normal site the Javascript less
>>share is even smaller.
> I'd argue that sites frequented by geeks are more likely to have users with
> the latest browsers, faster computers, bigger monitors with higher res,
> etc... sure there may be a few geeks who like to stick it up the system and
> surf with something like Lynx (0.28% of your users).

What I mean is that the share of users that understand how to turn off 
Javascript is certainly higher in a site for geeks. I did not say that 
all geeks are smart enough to know how to do it.

> On non-geek content sites, I would believe the results are different.  We
> actually get quite a lot of NN3, IE3, IE4, NN4 surfers on a craft/hobby
> store site, adding up to around 9-10%.
> Once again, we're comparing browsers, not the availability of JS though.
> In theory, all of them came "out of the box" with JS, but I'm not going to
> lay any bets on how many still have it turned on (how many years since
> NN3????).

I would say that the long standing users are even more aware that they 
should not turn off Javascript because they are experienced enough to 
know that some sites of their preference do not work right without 

I believe that users that disable Javascript just for a short period 
because soon or later they realize that it is their loss. Users that 
keep Javascript disable for a long time are not being smart, they are 
just being stubborn. Soon or later they realize that being stubborn is 

>>BTW, it is nothing related but watch how Mozilla/Netscape is discretely
>>swalling back share from IE at a pace of more than 1% a week.
> I'd say that will increase a LOT more once AOL adopt NN7!

I was with the impression that they already did.

> I understand your reasoning behind choosing a JS implementation, but I'm
> still not convinced at all.

I think you are just being stubborn. :-)

You decide what to do with your sites.

I just use Javascript in non-crucial things. It is not like the site 
does not work without Javascript.

I only started using Javascript to avoid e-mail harvesters when I got a 
complaint from a contributing author about spam got because his e-mail 
was exposed in the site pages.

Contribution authors are golden users. They are what keeps the site 
audience grow without having me to pay for their contributions. There is 
only 1 author for each 250 new users that subscribe to the site.

Even in the worst case that even if I loose all users with 
Javascript-less browsers because when they click on mailto: links they 
see -at- instead of @ and -dot- instead of . , which is an extremely 
unlikely situation, I think that protecting the e-mails of the 
contributing authors is much more important.

> And Miguel has raised an interesting point about useability... I feel this
> is going to be a huge issue in coming years...
> If you can be sued for not having wheelchair access in a hotel (a demand
> that all people can walk), then surely the hotel's website can also be sued
> for making demands about the user's method of surfing.
> SOCOG already copped this in Sydney 2002 didn't they???

Replacing characters of the e-mail to protect them from harvesting with 
characters that can be easily guess that they need to be replaced by 
Javascript-less users, does not make the site unusable. Insisting that 
it does makes your point becomes unreasonable.


Manuel Lemos

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

Reply via email to