I'd say its a trade off of time & money vs market share. How important to the companies success is it to get that 5% market share with javascript turned off? Is it really worth spending twice as long on? Probably not, probably at most worth 5% of your time. Redirect them to a page telling them to enable javascript.
On Feb 11, 4:39 am, Pete <[email protected]> wrote: > 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" <[email protected]> > 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 outdated service offered to many users all over the world ...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 the current way is outdated and in my opinion a very labourious way of 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" <[email protected]> > > To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" <[email protected]> > > 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" <[email protected]> > > 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" <[email protected]> > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
