[Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
On Feb 10, 8:29 pm, Lars Schwarz lars.schw...@gmail.com wrote: 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. The reason to check on the server isn't because scripting might be disabled, but because your server can't possibly know how the response was generated. 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. Yes, absolutely. I find it contradictory that some pursue a strategy of separating HTML and script, make their site utterly dependent on scripting. One result is that they have no recourse to simple HTML when all else fails. 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. That is usually only appropriate on an intranet or special purpose site (e.g. banking or share trading). 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. Yes. Forcing the use of scripting on the general web is akin to both those outdated strategies. turn off javascript, visit some sites you think are state-of-art and see how they handle it :) I use NoScript always and only allow the scripts that are absolutely necessary to use a site to run (mostly none at all). I have yet to find a reason to allow adsense or google-analytics to run. 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. I'd second that. -- Rob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[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
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
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
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
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
[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
[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 here http://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 W www.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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Proto-Scripty] Re: Taboo Subject
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 here http://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 W www.bitrocker.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received
