I'm certainly no zealot when it comes to things like standards and
accessibility, although I've found that they are worthy goals in the
majority of projects I've worked on.

I would be *very* wary of any client-side coding of the kind you
described that is *absolutely* required for correct server-side
functionality.  Never trust input from the user!  It's not definitely
a problem in your case, but the assumption that JS will be enabled,
and the following one that the form and data submissions won't be
tampered with, can be very dangerous from a security perspective.  I
gues you probably know that already, it's just that what you said sent
some alarm bells ringing in my head!

Good luck with your app, and maybe post back when you've made a
decision with your thinking as to why?

Best,

Pete



On Feb 11, 9:59 am, "Alex Mcauley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Pete ...
>
> Some core functions actually rely on JS (inline editing, Date picking and so
> on) ... i would have to code the site twice and have some extremely heavy
> server side restrictions in place for some stuff (at the moment i just use
> readonly="readonly" so i can not take user input and apply focus listeners
> to certain elements for smooth date pickers .... this is for client side
> smoothness but also because i need the input in a certain format on the
> server side to process it properly, i am still debating what to do at the
> moment but it is a brand new application and a new concept on an already
> outdated service offered to many users all over the world ... i suppose what
> i am/was/are trying to do is to change the way this kind of concept works as
> the current way is outdated and in my opinion a very labourious way of
> achieving the goals!.... So my idea was to radicalise it completely and give
> it a whole new twist - leaving out the old and replacing with the new
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete" <p...@otaqui.com>
> To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:02 PM
> Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Going beyond progressive enhancement, I'd take Google's approach with
> products like Maps and Gmail as great examples of extremely rich
> interfaces that are also done very well as "basic html."
>
> The end result for them is, in these rather extreme cases, actually
> coding the application *twice* - neither of the "basic html" versions
> of Maps or Gmail are just the same app with JS turned off, they are a
> different UI altogether.
>
> Obviously that approach isn't practical in a huge number of cases, and
> it's always up to the developer and client to decide if any particular
> app can afford to ignore X percent and simple go the route of
> disallowing non-js users.  It might be worth noting that the values
> you get (5% percent as you said from w3schools) could relate to the
> *traffic* rather than the *number of visitors* - it could be that 10
> or even 20% of actual users dont have JS enabled, but are only
> generating 5% of the traffic.
>
> I would say that if your app is "mostly" functional without JS, but
> you want to encourage it, to throw up a warning notice that the user's
> experience would be greatly improved if they did have it enabled.
> That seems much more graceful than a redirect.
>
> On Feb 10, 11:09 am, "Alex Mcauley" <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the input ... i have coded many sites that work with and
> > without
> > and enhanced by JS ... the question i am asking is not how to achieve it
> > but
> > should we as developers be forcing the issue of making more interactive
> > sites ... I am all for serverside code as thats where i began but its not
> > interactive enough and wont encourage slick and easy User Interfaces ....
> > Since writing the first email i went and browsed a few of the so called
> > top
> > sites around the internet. Facebook was the first and although it still
> > worked for most things it was still not as a good experiance as without JS
> > turned on (if you can say facebook is a good experiance at all that is
> > !!).... Ive decided to take this leap of faith and hopefully there are
> > many
> > developers that are asking the same questions as me and wondering if non
> > javascript users should be "supported fully" on thier web applications
> > ....
>
> > I remember reading a post on ajaxian a couple of months ago basically
> > stating that certain people would not be supporting IE6 anymore (i
> > personally havent supported it in a long time!!) which got me to thinking
> > when will the day arrive that the new wave of application developers stop
> > supporting non JS users .... A good example of a new wave web application
> > is
> > youtube ... although you can search youtube and possibly upload videos to
> > it (untested) without Javascript .. there is not alot else you can do on
> > the
> > site ... this is the same kind of functionality my site will end up on par
> > with.
>
> > PS. Does anyone know if search engine spiders/bots follow
> > <noscript>[INSERT
> > MY REDIRECT HERE]</noscript> or would it be safe to add to my page to tell
> > these nonJS users to enable JS !!
>
> > Thanks
> > Alex
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lars Schwarz" <lars.schw...@gmail.com>
> > To: <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 10:29 AM
> > Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
>
> > > well, it's like fixing IE6 bugs. i mostly double-code functions like
> > > form-checks that are
> > > done pre-posting in javascript, to be checked again on server side
> > > again for the case
> > > javascript is turned off.
>
> > > if you can't "double-code" some functions make sure the most important
> > > work without
> > > javascript, too. seperate necessary functions and effects you've done.
> > > in most cases
> > > it's no problem if some effects don't work, but make sure basic
> > > functions like form-validations
> > > or whatever you call basic-functionality on your project works with
> > > javascript disabled.
>
> > > on the other hand (really depends on your project) it's ok inform the
> > > user that he has to turn
> > > on javascript to make the site work.
>
> > > i guess it's a matter of taste. i remember sites warning the user if
> > > he used an old browser,
> > > or sites that alert users that "this site is optimized for <insert
> > > browser name> here". i prefer
> > > sites that make use of standards and work on (nearly) all browsers.
>
> > > turn off javascript, visit some sites you think are "state-of-art" and
> > > see how they handle it :)
>
> > > imho: have some kind of fallback and make sure basic
> > > functionality/validations/checks work,
> > > but don't care about visual effects working without javascript. just
> > > my 10 cents.
>
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Jeztah
> > > <webmas...@thecarmarketplace.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I am writing a site that uses heavy prototype libraries +
> > >> scriptaculous + jQuery ...
>
> > >> The issue i am having is a simple one ....
>
> > >> The site is marketed on its ease of use due to certain techniques ive
> > >> developed but they rely on Javascript and wont work without it.... The
> > >> site still functions without javascript but some core functions cannot
> > >> be achieved .. by this i mean someone can still browse the site and
> > >> search it and do alot of things.
>
> > >> So ive gone down the thinking process of redirecting people wihtout
> > >> javascript enabled or no javascript to a page on my site telling them
> > >> to enable javascript....
>
> > >> Now i know this is a big concern to alot of web developers as the norm
> > >> (mostly for me aswell) is make a functioning site then enhance the
> > >> Users Experiance with ajax/js technologies .... But my feeling is if
> > >> people dont start to force the issue of requiring javascript then the
> > >> web wont evolve into what it could become....
>
> > >> As of January 2008 95% of the browsers in the world had Javascript
> > >> turned on see herehttp://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
> > >> .. and i am personally not bothered about the 5% that dont .. i also
> > >> know of a few major websites that demand javascript be turned on to
> > >> enter them .
>
> > >> So my questions are ..
>
> > >> A. Should we as developers be taking these leaps of faith and
> > >> demanding a better development environment for our client side
> > >> programming.
> > >> B. Would googlebot and other Search Engines follow my <noscript>
> > >> header redirect !!
>
> > >> Hopefully this wont get flamed to much !!
>
> > >> Thanks in advance
>
> > >> Alex
>
> > > --
> > > Lars Schwarz
> > > Heiligengeiststr. 26
> > > 26121 Oldenburg
> > > T 0441 36110338
> > > M 0151 1727 8127
> > > Wwww.bitrocker.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group.
To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to