At 6/14/2009 11:28 AM, raven wrote:
> Keep in mind as always that a JavaScript solution will not work in
> user agents not running JavaScript,
>which can include search engines,
> mobile devices, assistive technology, browsers in certain corporate
> contexts in which JavaScript is globally turned off or stripped out
> of incoming pages by firewalls, old browsers, and modern browsers
> used by folks who turn it off for whatever reason.
Hmmm... what exactly problem can cause using of
JavaScript *in this case* from SEO point of view?
Not having seen the original poster's development
plan, we can't judge whether any of the parts
that are broken without JavaScript will
deleteriously affect its search engine ranking.
Because the page was SO dead without JavaScript,
I made the assumption that the author wasn't
considering scriptless UAs and therefore my remarks were intended generally.
Or what browser, *witch you really support*, don't support JS?
In my own work, my CSS support for mobile devices
has lagged, but as my pages all work 100% in the
absence of JavaScript (which I do use in every
site I produce) I can say I do support to that
extent all the JavaScript-disabled user agents
listed at the beginning of this post. (Also I do
support witches, but that's off-topic.)
And what part of your target auditory even know
how to disable JavaScript execution in their browsers?
Don't use common words! Give us facts, numbers, tests.
So, for example, if I could give you the number
of individuals who would be unable to use a
website because I built it to unnecessarily
require JavaScript, then would you be able to
tell me whether that was an acceptable sacrifice
in terms of loss of revenue to the client, loss
of good will, negative reviews, and negative
viral spread? What percentage of your clients'
target audiences have you decided to block from
the sites you build for no reason other than that
you enjoy building cool user interfaces in
JavaScript? If a website client of yours hired
you to manage an actual storefront and you
arbitrarily slammed the door in the face of every
100th, 200th, or even 1000th customer, how long
do you think would you keep your job?
But graceful degradation is good idea.
Graceful degradation is better than nothing, but progressive enhancement rocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/
If you have enough time and budget big enough
you may look for solutions for case when JavaScript is disabled.
I don't need to. I build sites to work well with
server-side scripting, then I enhance the
client-side experience with JavaScript. I don't
have to justify extra work to make a site
functional for any size of sub-market or worry
about how many people it's OK to piss off if the
site already works for every user agent. I don't
provide core functionality with JavaScript. I
learned the hard way that doing things the other
way around is time-consuming, expensive, and
frustrating. JavaScript is fun, but you aren't
going to survive long if you consistently eat
your dessert before your vegetables. No, first
you build a car that runs well, then you add the
chrome and fancy sound system. I'd better stop
before I think of any more metaphors to throw in the pot. Oops, too late.
P.S. In ordinar case if you can get
functionality, you need, without JS do it.
Exactly.
To everyone, I apologize for indulging in a
philosophical argument that has already seen so
much traffic. Reviewing the wsg list guidelines,
I hope this falls into the category of discussing best practices.
Regards,
Paul
__________________________
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************
