Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
> What kind of mobile phone does the average person use? <…> > As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't > actually support javascript at all! <…> The right question to ask would be "what kind of mobile phone does the average person use to browse the web?". My point is, that those owning devices with not so great browsers avoid browsing the web, on the other hand iPhone or Android phones make it straight-forward and pleasant experience. The end result would be that despite being insignificant number in terms of mobile unit count these devices will be much more prominent on the web. See for example here: http://blogs.computerworld.com/iphone_users_search_google_5000 or here: http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=2321 Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 13:07 +, James Leslie wrote: > Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled > so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. > > *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** not just many ... actually I would say MOST (and its not "disabled" its simply not there!) What kind of mobile phone does the average person use? ... probably more likely to be a consumer-price-level phone (the kinds of phones often offered with pre-paid plans) and probably a couple of years old (how often does the average person buy a new phone?) rather than the new high end devices we read so much about. As for that figure, I'm not sure that includes browsers that don't actually support javascript at all! ... and if the site collecting those stats isn't easy to use on a tiny screen they probably wouldn't be getting many mobile visitors. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Was about to say! Very true, but the iPhone is proving a popular combination, especially with unlimited data on contract, and JS is turned on by default. There is an option to turn it off, but I doubt many would do so. PS I'm using an iPhone all the time now, typing this message one one! It's great, and renders webpages brilliantly. Only thing is that it doesn't yet support flash - sorry for going OT here! James -- James Milligan Lake Internet Services www.lake54.com On 30 Jan 2009, at 13:07, "James Leslie" wrote: Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
> Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled > so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. > *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** I actually see mobile browsing rising in popularity when browsers on gadgets are full capable—like mobile safari, or android's browser, so I don't expect to see the number of JS enabled users decreasing because of mobile devices. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** Sorry - that should have said disabled not enabled ** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
I recently got my hands on some statistics for a major UK bank who found that 2.7% of their customers have JavaScript disabled. I think this may be a slightly more realistic figure than the techy W3C site. Another point to note is that many mobile phones have JavaScript enabled so this figure may increase with the expected rise in mobile popularity. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state: > more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike > the general public. > One other thing to bear in mind is that we are mostly thinking of users as being sat at home surfing the web - but a large proportion of web traffic will be people surfing from work, where they have no control over the configuration or restrictions placed on either their browser or at the firewall level. There are bound to be some sysadmins who lockdown script access for all employees, which will contribute to the 5-10% of non-JS enabled users. It's not always a conscious choice on the part of the user. - Matthew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Dave Hall wrote: > I would suggest that w3schools attracts a "more switched on user" than > say Live Search, YouTube or myspace/facebook/insert social network here. > Stats from those types of sites are what I would be more interested in > seeing. Good luck to the Facebook user without JavaScript enabled. o_O -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
> IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the > general intarwebs user base. Exactly, only this can mean the opposite of what you state: more tech savy users know how to turn Javascript off, unlike the general public. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:48 -0500, Rick Faircloth wrote: > According to statistics supplied by w3schools.com, as of Jan 08 > approximately 95% of users had JS enabled. > > Check out http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp > and look towards the middle of the page for the stats. Just to keep this thread kicking (I am behind in my mail). I would suggest that w3schools attracts a "more switched on user" than say Live Search, YouTube or myspace/facebook/insert social network here. Stats from those types of sites are what I would be more interested in seeing. IMO stats from tech sites are not very representative of the general intarwebs user base. Cheers Dave *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Paul Hudson wrote: Doesn't ie6's highest security setting turn js off? Yes, and all that goes with it - like IE-expressions. I haven't looked at ie7 but would assume similar. IE7 same as IE6. From the look of it - brief testing - IE8b2 also turns off script-support in high security mode. Statistics are as unreliable as they ever were, but one can deduct from crawling around in stats and reading various stat-based conclusions that 5 to 10% of web surfers have javascript support disabled - at least on some sites, or use browsers with no script-support - not many of those. Don't think one can get any closer. No real indication that "javascript support disabled" is on the rise, but not that it falls either. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
According to statistics supplied by w3schools.com, as of Jan 08 approximately 95% of users had JS enabled. Check out http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp and look towards the middle of the page for the stats. Rick > -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On > Behalf Of Simon Pascal Klein > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 10:59 PM > To: Jessica Enders > Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript > > Comments inline: > > On 27/01/2009, at 7:33 AM, Jessica Enders wrote: > > > Hi Pascal > > > > In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you > > mention "the growing number of users who purposefully disable > > JavaScript". I'm always curious just how many people this is. > > > > Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a > > reason you describe it as a "growing number"? > > > > Any information greatly appreciated. > > No, I dont have access to any statistics on the matter. I want to > clarify that my comment does not address the growing number of new > Internet users who most likely will have JavaScript turned on or the > majority of users in a holistic sense. I dont think the users that > disable JS are a majority but I definitely think they are on the rise > as many security experts are recommending JS to be disabled by default. > > Whether or not JS-disabled users are a statistic worth noting should > not be in question here. I think Anthony Ziebell puts it best: > > JavaScript should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing > functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it There > are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldnt let > JavaScript dictate how you code. > > > Kind regards. > > Pascal > > > > Cheers > > > > Jessica Enders > > Principal > > Formulate Information Design > > > > http://formulate.com.au > > > > Phone: (02) 6116 8765 > > Fax: (02) 8456 5916 > > PO Box 5108 > > Braddon ACT 2612 > > > > > > On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: > > > >> If there were further communication between the user and server > >> between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then > >> a screen user shouldnt have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would > >> run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks > >> the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, > >> username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. > >> > >> The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message > >> (such as please fill out all marked (*) fields or the like) that > >> could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript unhidden when an > >> error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy > >> as these automatic feedback and error messages are through > >> JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is > >> bestafter all its impossible to tell those users using an > >> accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and > >> hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable > >> JavaScript wont see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. > >> > >> Just my 0.2¢. > >> > >> > >> On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: > >> > Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? > >>> > >>> Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be > >>> accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation > >>> for > >>> (X)HTML+ARIA: > >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html > >>> > >>> Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I > >>> believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the > >>> same for document type "HTML5". > >>> > >>> There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. > >>> All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Rimantas > >>> -- > >>> http://rimantas.com/ > >>> > >>> > >>> *** > >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > >>> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > >>> *** > >>> > >> > >> --- > >> Simon Pascal Klein > >> Concept designer > >> > >> (w) http://klepas.org > >> (e) kle...@klepas.org > >> > >> > >> > >> *** > >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > >>
RE: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript
Doesn't ie6's highest security setting turn js off? I haven't looked at ie7 but would assume similar. Regards Paul -Original Message- From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On Behalf Of Simon Pascal Klein Sent: Tuesday, 27 January 2009 2:59 PM To: Jessica Enders Cc: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Re: Users who deliberately disable JavaScript Comments inline: On 27/01/2009, at 7:33 AM, Jessica Enders wrote: > Hi Pascal > > In the JavaScript/Accessibility/form validation discussion you > mention "the growing number of users who purposefully disable > JavaScript". I'm always curious just how many people this is. > > Do you, or does anyone else, have any statistics on this? Is there a > reason you describe it as a "growing number"? > > Any information greatly appreciated. No, I don't have access to any statistics on the matter. I want to clarify that my comment does not address the growing number of new Internet users who most likely will have JavaScript turned on or the majority of users in a holistic sense. I don't think the users that disable JS are a majority but I definitely think they are on the rise as many security experts are recommending JS to be disabled by default. Whether or not JS-disabled users are a statistic worth noting should not be in question here. I think Anthony Ziebell puts it best: "JavaScript should be implemented only to supplement / layer existing functionality. Your site should operate just fine without it... There are always exceptions to this rule however you shouldn't let JavaScript dictate how you code." Kind regards. -Pascal > Cheers > > Jessica Enders > Principal > Formulate Information Design > > http://formulate.com.au > > Phone: (02) 6116 8765 > Fax: (02) 8456 5916 > PO Box 5108 > Braddon ACT 2612 > > > On 19/01/2009, at 11:14 PM, Simon Pascal Klein wrote: > >> If there were further communication between the user and server >> between submission of the form that would entail a page reload then >> a screen user shouldn't have an issue, whereas if JavaScript would >> run in the background and inject errors or suggestions as it thinks >> the user makes them (e.g. password complexity recommendations, >> username not available messages) numerous accessibility issues arise. >> >> The only solution that came to mind was having a generic message >> (such as 'please fill out all marked (*) fields' or the like) that >> could be hidden using CSS and through JavaScript 'unhidden' when an >> error appears (though it could only be a generic error). As dandy >> as these automatic feedback and error messages are through >> JavaScript maybe a full submission and subsequent page reload is >> best-after all it's impossible to tell those users using an >> accessibility aid like a screen reader from those who do not, and >> hey, the growing number of users who purposefully disable >> JavaScript won't see the glitzy JavaScript injected errors anyway. >> >> Just my 0.2¢. >> >> >> On 19/01/2009, at 5:52 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: >> Isn't 'aria-required' a non-standard attribute? >>> >>> Sadly, yes. But there is some hope: it is possible that ARIA will be >>> accepted in HTML5 and there is an initiative to provide validation >>> for >>> (X)HTML+ARIA: >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2008Sep/0381.html >>> >>> Validator.nu already has experimental support for HTML5+ARIA, and I >>> believe (did not check) http://qa-dev.w3.org/wmvs/HEAD/ provides the >>> same for document type "HTML5". >>> >>> There is also a possibility to add ARIA attributes with Javascript. >>> All the options are controversial, but that's how it is for now :( >>> >>> Regards, >>> Rimantas >>> -- >>> http://rimantas.com/ >>> >>> >>> *** >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >>> *** >>> >> >> --- >> Simon Pascal Klein >> Concept designer >> >> (w) http://klepas.org >> (e) kle...@klepas.org >> >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> *** > --- Simon Pascal Klein Graphic & Web Designer Web: http://klepas.org E-mai: kle...@klepas.org Twitter: @klepas; http://twitter.com/klepas Kaffee und Kuchen. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsu
