Thanks seasoup that was kinda in my thoughts too
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "seasoup" <seas...@gmail.com>
To: "Prototype & script.aculo.us" <prototype-scriptaculous@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 6:19 PM
Subject: [Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject



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 <p...@otaqui.com> 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" <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 outdated service offered to many users all over the world ...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 the current way is outdated and in my opinion a very labourious way of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