JavaScript or not JavaScript

[Mark Rae]

Hi,

Just had an interesting message from someone who was unable to view one of
my sites because they have JavaScript turned off, and expecting me to
re-write my site so that they could view it...

I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions about this. I use
JavaScript all the time, and can't really imagine ASP.NET development
without it...

Mark

 

[Scott M.]

Having JavaScript turned off is certainly a possbile scenario, but in my
experience (especially with XP SP2 & the "Information Bar"), it is rare.

When I build a site for the general public, I assume JavaScript will be
available. If one person contacted me and told me that my site didn't work
because they have JavaScript turned off, I'd tell them to turn it on,
period. Again, the XP Information Bar (assuming they run Windows) will
protect them when a page contains JavaScript, so there really is no reason
to turn it off there.

 

[Mark Rae]

When I build a site for the general public, I assume JavaScript will be
available.

Me too.

If one person contacted me and told me that my site didn't work because
they have JavaScript turned off, I'd tell them to turn it on, period.

Me too.

Again, the XP Information Bar (assuming they run Windows) will protect
them when a page contains JavaScript, so there really is no reason to turn
it off there.

They were actually using a Mac...

 

[Mark Rae]

Lack of imagination is not a problem. Lack of ability is. You won't be
able to. Neither me.

Well, it's interesting, and has got me thinking a bit...

You'll have heard of the 80/20 theory of software development & usage...?

1) approximately 80% of commercial software users use approximately 20% of
that software's functionality (think of Excel...)

2) generally speaking, 80% of commercial software development requires 20%
of the whole project's resources, because it's been done before - it's the
last 20% of development which takes the time and money, because it's the
"hard bit"...

Most web developers spend a fair bit of time (and, therefore, money) making
sure their sites work correctly on MacOS as well as Windows, yet MacOS
represents only 3% of the browser OS market:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/August/os.php

By the same argument, browsers with JavaScript turned off accounted for 6%
of all web hits last month:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/August/javas.php so you might logically
posit an argument that we, as developers, should be spending twice as much
time and effort in getting our sites to work in that scenario...

 

[Eliyahu Goldin]

I use JavaScript all the time, and can't really imagine ASP.NET

development without it...

Mark,

Lack of imagination is not a problem. Lack of ability is. You won't be able
to. Neither me.

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi,

Hi,

Just had an interesting message from someone who was unable to view one of
my sites because they have JavaScript turned off, and expecting me to
re-write my site so that they could view it...

I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions about this. I use
JavaScript all the time, and can't really imagine ASP.NET development
without it...

Mark

My rule of thumb is: the site should offer minimal functionality without
JavaScript, but not more. If JavaScript is turned off, I lead the users
to a page where I explain to them how and why they should turn it on.

HTH,
Laurent

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi,

Mark Rae wrote:

Most web developers spend a fair bit of time (and, therefore, money) making
sure their sites work correctly on MacOS as well as Windows, yet MacOS
represents only 3% of the browser OS market:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/August/os.php

I am not sure that so many web developers care for Mac. My aim is to
code as standard as possible (using Firefox as a reference), and then to
check in IE if everything works as I want, with minor corrections if
needed. If I happen to have a Mac around, I'll check my sites to see if
everything is OK, and this is usually the case.

When I started making websites, I once read that 60% of a web
developer's time was used to ensure compatibility between the two major
browsers (back then, Netscape 4 and IE4). I think that the browsers (and
the development environments) improved a lot since then, and I estimate
this time down to 10% max, including HTML, CSS ad JavaScript.

By the same argument, browsers with JavaScript turned off accounted for 6%
of all web hits last month:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/August/javas.php so you might logically
posit an argument that we, as developers, should be spending twice as much
time and effort in getting our sites to work in that scenario...

With Microsoft's new taste for JavaScript (what, with ATLAS and all),
these 6% are very likely to drop soon.

HTH,
Laurent

 

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

I actually prefer sites without it but from a commercial design perspective
you design a site with a specific target audience in mind and for many
dynamic sites that involves using javascript. For non-dynamic sites I try
to cater for non-javascript browser, but its usually too expensive and time
consuming to even consider. Think of all the flash sites around - how many
people refuse to use a flash site, the number is falling all the time. If
you dont use flash you cant use the site - if someone wants to use a site
they turn it on, same with javascript.

The call is that if it needs javascript to function then thats a design
feature of the site, and you have to question how much work is involved in
making it work for the minority who wish to use it without javascript -
usually you can throw away the minority who cant make their browser work,
safely with javascript. If however that means losing customers and each
sale is quite important then you have to make your sites work without it.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)

 

[Mark Rae]

If however that means losing customers and each sale is quite important
then you have to make your sites work without it.

Not if the proportionally small additional revenue which that would bring in
is actually less than the cost of making the site non-JS compliant in the
first place...

 

[Mark Rae]

My rule of thumb is: the site should offer minimal functionality without
JavaScript, but not more. If JavaScript is turned off, I lead the users to
a page where I explain to them how and why they should turn it on.

I'd be interested in seeing what you put on that page - can you post a URL?

 

[Scott M.]

Hi John,

I *somewhat* agree with you on some of your points, but JavaScript is no
longer an extra that delivers *features* to web sites. It has become a
ubiquitous part of web design. Just as you wouldn't be able to have a web
page without HTML, in today's world, you can't have functioning eCommerce
sites without CSS, XHTML, XML and yes, JavaScript. Since all modern
browsers have the capabilities to support these things and there are
sufficient software packages out there to protect a user against malicious
JavaScript, I subscribe to the camp that says, if you want to use this site,
turn the feature on. All others can crawl back under their rocks.

-Scott

 

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

Not if the proportionally small additional revenue which that would bring
in is actually less than the cost of making the site non-JS compliant in
the first place...

I dont disagree with you - as I said it depends on if each sale is important
enough to the business to justify the investment. One caveat would be that
I have though come across sites whose main driver was to get numbers up to
help build a brand or increase awareness, not to actually make sales. In
this type of scenario proportional compatability can make a significant
business case - but we should still target a site based on well thought out
requirements. If Javascript's not seen as a necessary (or is) then code
accordingly.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)

 

[Mark Rae]

I *somewhat* agree with you on some of your points, but JavaScript is no
longer an extra that delivers *features* to web sites. It has become a
ubiquitous part of web design. Just as you wouldn't be able to have a web
page without HTML, in today's world, you can't have functioning eCommerce
sites without CSS, XHTML, XML and yes, JavaScript. Since all modern
browsers have the capabilities to support these things and there are
sufficient software packages out there to protect a user against malicious
JavaScript, I subscribe to the camp that says, if you want to use this
site, turn the feature on. All others can crawl back under their rocks.

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

 

[Laurent Bugnion]

Hi,

I'd be interested in seeing what you put on that page - can you post a URL?

http://www.galasoft-lb.ch/nojs.html

I use it like this:

<a href="nojs.html" onclick="myJavaScriptFunction();return false;">
This is a link using JavaScript only</a>

HTH,
Laurent

 

[Damien]

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

Ooh! Ooh! It looks like I'm going to be the one dissenting voice.

We put a new website live last week. Whilst it is anonymous, we do
collect a lot of diagnostic information. From one week alone, we're
seeing 20% of sessions where javascript is turned off (yes, that figure
surprised me to).

Our design ethos was, thankfully:
If the user has javascript, make the experience work slickly.
If the use doesn't have javascript, make the site work.

So, whilst a user with JS gets a smooth experience (such as an AJAX
based predictive text drop down), a non JS user can at least get
through the site unscathed (though possibly moaning about some of the
postbacks that have to occur).

Damien

 

[Mark Rae]

Our design ethos was, thankfully:
If the user has javascript, make the experience work slickly.
If the use doesn't have javascript, make the site work.

So, whilst a user with JS gets a smooth experience (such as an AJAX
based predictive text drop down), a non JS user can at least get
through the site unscathed (though possibly moaning about some of the
postbacks that have to occur).

Damien

 

[Mark Rae]

Our design ethos was, thankfully:
If the user has javascript, make the experience work slickly.
If the use doesn't have javascript, make the site work.

So, whilst a user with JS gets a smooth experience (such as an AJAX
based predictive text drop down), a non JS user can at least get
through the site unscathed (though possibly moaning about some of the
postbacks that have to occur).

Fair enough - that's your decision.

I use the new <asp:Menu> control a lot in my sites these days, and that
(AFAIK) simply will *NOT* work properly with JavaScript disabled.

If I have to find a different method of site navigation just for the
paranoid few, I may as well not bother using the <asp:Menu> control at
all...

 

[Damien]

Fair enough - that's your decision.

I use the new <asp:Menu> control a lot in my sites these days, and that
(AFAIK) simply will *NOT* work properly with JavaScript disabled.

If I have to find a different method of site navigation just for the
paranoid few, I may as well not bother using the <asp:Menu> control at
all...

True, our site is still under 1.1, so we didn't get to use any of these
features. But having looked at our revised figures, we're now running
at 27% of sessions not having script available. I wonder if it's some
quirk of our target market, but I wouldn't describe 1/4 of users as a
few. (And no, we're not in a "security concious" market - our clients
are people with debt problems)

Damien

 

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

One thing this thread has not touched on is the need to cater for disabled
users across a web site, and its an area where use of Javascript will always
score poorly and is a pressing design issue for web designers worldwide with
new legislation having the potential to affect design choices. A compliant
site containing JavaScript will typically be fully accessible if the
functionality of the script allows device independency, in other words it
can work if the user only uses a mouse, or if the user only uses a
keyboard - and the content can still be accessed if javascript is not
enabled. There is a requirement that sites should be fully functional with
JavaScript disabled in section 508 of the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines.

So its not that Javascript in itself is a good or a bad addition to a web
site, it should not form the underlying driving mechanism for a site. As to
the asp.net controls, the menu control itself allows for static menu items
to assist with accessibility but it does require javacript to function. It
does though have elements added to assist with accessibility. For those of
you looking for extra information the section in MSDN tells you which
controls will require client script:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms227996.aspx so you can determine
which controls are likely to be problematic to non-javascript users.

Regards

John Timney (MVP)

 

[Mark Rae]

True, our site is still under 1.1, so we didn't get to use any of these
features. But having looked at our revised figures, we're now running
at 27% of sessions not having script available. I wonder if it's some
quirk of our target market, but I wouldn't describe 1/4 of users as a
few. (And no, we're not in a "security concious" market - our clients
are people with debt problems)

I'm sure it must be. The reason I use theCounter.com's stats is because
their counters are one of if not the most popular counters out there, and
their stats are based on hundreds of millions of hits - 118,800,730 for the
month of August 2006 which, by any test of reasonableness is a
representative sample...