percentage of JS-blind browsers

Discussion in 'HTML' started by aa, Oct 19, 2004.

  1. aa

    aa Guest

    There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
    menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
    someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.

    I wander if anyone checked that statistics.

    About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
    code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
    After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
    98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
    if I am not mistaken.

    The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
    do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
    string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)

    Therefore the spread of JS-blind browsers seems to be overstated at least as
    far as that wab-site target audience is concerned.

    Does any body have statistics on uswer agents of his/her own?
     
    aa, Oct 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Quoth the raven aa:

    > The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search
    > engines which do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone
    > loads kewords into JS string literals, which is insane and should
    > not be taken into account)


    You are missing the fact that while a browser may /support/
    JavaScript, the user has disabled it. I usually do have it disabled,
    because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    JavaScript Statistics

    There are no absolute trends about the use of JavaScript. Some users
    have scripting turned off. Some browsers don't support scripting:
    <table follows>

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. aa

    RobM Guest

    "aa" <> wrote in message
    news:41756e13$0$47978$...
    >
    > About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server

    side
    > code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
    > After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
    > 98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
    > if I am not mistaken.
    >

    Hello aa.

    Of course... we see that too in our J2EE webapps.... but doesnt mean they
    have it (javascript) switched on. There's a usability issue and a security
    issue here, and also a user preference issue. Some companies with LAN (govt)
    have it switched off, some users may also have (esp to stop popups and
    dynamic stuff, although layer browsers (not IE AFAIK) can now stop the
    popups. I think one of the base lines here is that you cant guarantee what
    the user has or what features switched on or available. It may even by a
    mobile phone (which is becoming more prevalent) where all that dynamic JS
    stuff may not be appropriate.JS nice to give extras and pretty up the site,
    but dont rely on it if not available on the UA.

    Cheers
    Rob
    Melbourne
     
    RobM, Oct 19, 2004
    #3
  4. aa

    RobM Guest

    "RobM" <> wrote in message
    news:Gwedd.32515$...

    > dynamic stuff, although layer browsers (not IE AFAIK) can now stop the


    too early in the morning! Read as "...although later browsers ..."

    > Cheers
    > Rob
    > Melbourne
    >
    >
     
    RobM, Oct 19, 2004
    #4
  5. *aa* wrote:
    > There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
    > menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
    > someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.


    Javascript navigation is usually not *usable* regardless of the status
    of javascript support.

    > I wander if anyone checked that statistics.
    >
    > About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
    > code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
    > After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
    > 98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
    > if I am not mistaken.


    You reap what you sow; if a site is unusable/inaccessible to some users,
    don't expect to see those users in your stats.

    Also: http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=107

    > The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
    > do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
    > string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)


    If javascript has been used to provide critical functionality such as
    navigation and content then search engines would need to support
    javascript to index the site properly (e.g. the http://www.sears.com/
    site I noticed today). In some ways, Google is your most important blind
    user - you can't dismiss it from your argument as easily as you have.
    --
    Andrew Urquhart
    - FAQ: http://www.html-faq.com/
    - Archive: http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.html
    - Reply: http://andrewu.co.uk/contact/
     
    Andrew Urquhart, Oct 19, 2004
    #5
  6. aa

    aa Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:Joedd.17530$...
    > You are missing the fact that while a browser may /support/
    > JavaScript,

    I am not missing. I'm just trying not to confuse browser capabilities with
    user preferences.
    If a user is advanced enough to switch off scripts, then he knows what he is
    doing.
    Like some people opt to disable graphics (I did it myself 5 years ago to
    speed up download but stopped doing so since 56K modems became standard),
    and even worse, disable image placeholders so that the whole layout goes
    babana - it does not mean that webdesigners had to replace a picture with
    the proverbial 1000 words. It is enough to put some indication into ALT so
    that a visitor can decide if to enable pictures. Same appllies to scripts

    > JavaScript, the user has disabled it. I usually do have it disabled,

    because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.

    The ultimate solution to this problem would be to have your display disabled
    because crap can even better be thrown without JS, just with <h1> tag alone.
    BTW, do you know how to disable downloading FLASH in IE6 other then
    uninstalling it?


    > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp


    Global statistics not necessarily applies to local conditions and I better
    trust what I see myself. But in this instance the global stats shows similar
    to what I saw on my website - about 97% are JS supporting browsers.

    BTW the stat indeed depends very much on the website's audience. The stat I
    mentioned was for a site dealing with ladies shoes and there IE was about
    85% and very little Mozilla. The other site on building materials shown
    about 70% IE and considerable number of Mozilla.
     
    aa, Oct 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Quoth the raven aa:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote
    >
    >> You are missing the fact that while a browser may /support/
    >> JavaScript,

    >
    > I am not missing. I'm just trying not to confuse browser
    > capabilities with user preferences. If a user is advanced enough to
    > switch off scripts, then he knows what he is doing.


    Yes, because the user is smart enough to know that JavaScript can be
    misused.

    > Like some people opt to disable graphics (I did it myself 5 years
    > ago to speed up download but stopped doing so since 56K modems
    > became standard), and even worse, disable image placeholders so
    > that the whole layout goes babana - it does not mean that
    > webdesigners had to replace a picture with the proverbial 1000
    > words. It is enough to put some indication into ALT so that a
    > visitor can decide if to enable pictures. Same appllies to scripts


    Your ALT text should not be a thousand words. You're comparing apples
    and oranges.

    >> JavaScript, the user has disabled it. I usually do have it
    >> disabled,

    > because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.
    >
    > The ultimate solution to this problem would be to have your display
    > disabled because crap can even better be thrown without JS, just
    > with <h1> tag alone.


    No, you're wrong. An <h1> contains no script and therefore can't
    execute anything on my computer. It may look ugly, but is not dynamic.
    Again, apples and oranges.

    > BTW, do you know how to disable downloading FLASH in IE6 other then
    > uninstalling it?


    Couldn't tell ya; it's been so long since I've used it.

    >> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    >
    > Global statistics not necessarily applies to local conditions and I
    > better trust what I see myself. But in this instance the global
    > stats shows similar to what I saw on my website - about 97% are JS
    > supporting browsers.


    Sure. Even NS4 supports JavaScript. Now go and write something to
    track whether it is *enabled* in all these browsers.

    > BTW the stat indeed depends very much on the website's audience.
    > The stat I mentioned was for a site dealing with ladies shoes and
    > there IE was about 85% and very little Mozilla. The other site on
    > building materials shown about 70% IE and considerable number of
    > Mozilla.


    Which browsers your visitors use is not germane to this topic. I don't
    care what browser the visitors to my sites use. JavaScript is not
    required for anything.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 19, 2004
    #7
  8. aa

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:44:39 +0100, "aa" <> wrote:

    >There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
    >menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
    >someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.


    100% of Googlebots don't do JS.

    Don't worry about JS. It's not necessary to use a site.

    If it _is_ necessary (i.e. for navigation) then you're a muppet and
    your site gets the users it deserves - none through Google, that's for
    starters. There is _no_ reason why JS-alone navigation can't be
    emulated through non-JS methods, so anyone who does choose to do this
    can only be assumed to have done it deliberately, despite the
    consequences.


    >After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
    >98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera


    user_agent hasn't been reliable since IE started calling itself
    Mozilla, and _really_ hasn't been reliable since better browsers
    starting spoofing as IE to fool those idiot sites with IE-detectors
    ( www.powergen.co.uk I mean you !)


    >all able of supporting Javascript


    Don't forget those intermediate levels; those with it turned off
    (probably small) and those running pop-up blockers that will partially
    disable it (my guess is that these are probably a larger group these
    days).

    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 20, 2004
    #8
  9. aa

    jake Guest

    In message <41756e13$0$47978$>, aa
    <> writes
    >There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
    >menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
    >someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.
    >
    >I wander if anyone checked that statistics.
    >
    >About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
    >code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
    >After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
    >98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
    >if I am not mistaken.
    >
    >The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
    >do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
    >string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)
    >
    >Therefore the spread of JS-blind browsers seems to be overstated at least as
    >far as that wab-site target audience is concerned.
    >
    >Does any body have statistics on uswer agents of his/her own?
    >

    Based on the example of a low-usage site that I occasionally contribute
    the odd page to, the stats-counter program indicates that less than 1%
    of (random) visitors are non-javascript capable (JS switched off or
    otherwise).

    Using Javascript is fine; just remember to include an alternative for
    those users who aren't JS-capable (if it's an important function).


    regards.

    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Oct 20, 2004
    #9
  10. aa

    rf Guest

    jake wrote:

    > Based on the example of a low-usage site that I occasionally contribute
    > the odd page to, the stats-counter program indicates that less than 1%
    > of (random) visitors are non-javascript capable (JS switched off or
    > otherwise).


    Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
    not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
    counting?

    --
    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Oct 20, 2004
    #10
  11. aa

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:11:12 GMT, "rf" <rf@.invalid> wrote:

    >Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
    >not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
    >counting?


    If you care about this, the usually technique is to dynamically modify
    the page so that it loads a 1x1 blank GIF that wasn't mentioned in the
    statc HTML. The URL to this GIF has an identifier for the page
    embedded in it (which also bursts any caching).

    Parse up the server logs, match the page loads to the image loads, and
    away you go.
    --
    Smert' spamionam
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 20, 2004
    #11
  12. aa

    brucie Guest

    In alt.html Andy Dingley said:

    > 1x1 blank GIF


    blocked by firewalls and ad filters as a webbug

    --


    v o i c e s
     
    brucie, Oct 20, 2004
    #12
  13. aa

    jake Guest

    In message <Qttdd.33551$>, rf
    <rf@?.invalid> writes
    >jake wrote:
    >
    >> Based on the example of a low-usage site that I occasionally contribute
    >> the odd page to, the stats-counter program indicates that less than 1%
    >> of (random) visitors are non-javascript capable (JS switched off or
    >> otherwise).

    >
    >Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
    >not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
    >counting?
    >

    You'll need to ask these nice folks:

    http://www.statcounter.com/

    regards
    --
    Jake
     
    jake, Oct 20, 2004
    #13
  14. aa

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:36:45 +1000, brucie <>
    wrote:

    >> 1x1 blank GIF

    >
    >blocked by firewalls and ad filters as a webbug


    Well use one of the "live" images then - just change the URL you use
    to retrieve it.

    It was 2001 when I really cared about this stuff - not many people
    were blocking ads and webbugs then, you just nuked doubleclick in the
    DNS.
     
    Andy Dingley, Oct 20, 2004
    #14
  15. aa

    aa Guest

    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > user_agent hasn't been reliable since IE started calling itself
    > Mozilla, and _really_ hasn't been reliable since better browsers
    > starting spoofing as IE to fool those idiot sites with IE-detectors
    > ( www.powergen.co.uk I mean you !)


    You better mean yourself if you still cannot see that for the purpose of
    this dicussion distinguishing between IE and Mozilla does not matter as
    both support JS
     
    aa, Oct 20, 2004
    #15
  16. aa

    aa Guest

    "RobM" <> wrote in message
    news:Gwedd.32515$...

    > It may even by a
    > mobile phone (which is becoming more prevalent) where all that dynamic JS
    > stuff may not be appropriate.


    This argument is hardly valid as for mobiles you have to make a special
    version of your site anyway
     
    aa, Oct 20, 2004
    #16
  17. aa

    aa Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:WJfdd.311502$...

    > Your ALT text should not be a thousand words. You're comparing apples
    > and oranges.


    You should re-read my comments before answering like that. Besides I see
    nothing wrong anout comparing apples and oranges they have bot common things
    as well as different ones. Same applies to my analogy agains which you
    onviously have no other valid argument.


    > No, you're wrong. An <h1> contains no script and therefore can't
    > execute anything on my computer. It may look ugly, but is not dynamic.


    Bloody hell! What you people have done to your sense of humour? Besides how
    static crap is better then the dynamic one? For me crap is crap irrespective
    if its dynamism.

    > Again, apples and oranges.


    No, now it is static crap vs dynamic crap

    > Sure. Even NS4 supports JavaScript. Now go and write something to
    > track whether it is *enabled* in all these browsers.


    I stopped caring about NS4 users time ago. Because NS stopped caring about
    them even earlier.

    > Which browsers your visitors use is not germane to this topic.

    Still it is more germane than your apples and oranges

    > I don't care what browser the visitors to my sites use.


    This is bemusing to hear from a person who obviously consider hemself an
    authoruty in web-design.
    Didn't they tell you on those HTML courses that checking your pages on every
    browser you customer might use is the must?
     
    aa, Oct 20, 2004
    #17
  18. aa

    aa Guest

    "Andrew Urquhart" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > You reap what you sow; if a site is unusable/inaccessible to some users,
    > don't expect to see those users in your stats.


    Are you sure I know what you are talking about? As rf rightly stated,
    servers do not detect if a user agent supports JS. They log the visitor
    irrespective if JS support


    > If javascript has been used to provide critical functionality such as
    > navigation and content then search engines would need to support
    > javascript to index the site properly (e.g. the http://www.sears.com/
    > site I noticed today). In some ways, Google is your most important blind
    > user - you can't dismiss it from your argument as easily as you have.


    This argument has been reiterated many times in this NG and so far I ignored
    it.
    People who use it heard something about SEs but seem to have little
    practical experience which does not prevent them from confidently misleading
    the others.

    Those Googlebots you all talk about are designed for those web developers
    who do not understand or do not care about SEs. Yes, Google's objective it
    to index as many pages as possible and JS menu may prevent it. However
    allowing Google to index ALL you site following non-JS menu will not
    garantee high rating. Actually it is the other way round.

    The very expression "SE to index you site" shows lack of undestanding how it
    works. You do not want SE to index you whole site.
    You want SE to index certain pages only, which you carefully prepare and
    sumbit to SE.
    Allowing SE to index all you site is like diluting beer with water as it
    reduces relevancy.
    If you take a particular page, then the presence of a JS menu is only an
    advantage because menu contains a lot of data irrelevant to the page
    contents.
    But page contents - this is what you want to index by SE. So JS menu helps
    SE to ignore irrelevant info and increase the concentration of meaningful
    data.
    If I failed to convince you, why don't you go to Google, make a search and
    see how many pages with JS menu and with non-JS menu will show up there.
     
    aa, Oct 20, 2004
    #18
  19. Quoth the raven aa:

    > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote
    >
    >> Your ALT text should not be a thousand words. You're comparing
    >> apples and oranges.

    >
    > You should re-read my comments before answering like that. Besides
    > I see nothing wrong anout comparing apples and oranges they have
    > bot common things as well as different ones. Same applies to my
    > analogy agains which you onviously have no other valid argument.


    <sigh> I've read your statement several times now, and cannot figure
    out what you are trying to say.

    ALT text is supposed to be a short, concise description of what the
    image is about.

    <img "sunset.jpg" alt="Sunset at Malibu" height="nnn" width="nnn">

    >> No, you're wrong. An <h1> contains no script and therefore can't
    >> execute anything on my computer. It may look ugly, but is not
    >> dynamic.

    >
    > Bloody hell! What you people have done to your sense of humour?


    My sense of humour is just fine. In fact, can you hear me guffawing
    just now?

    > Besides how static crap is better then the dynamic one? For me crap
    > is crap irrespective if its dynamism.


    You are intentionally skirting the point. The discussion is about why
    people disable JavaScript. It's because too many authors (?) misuse
    it. A poorly styled <h1> will *not*, repeat, *not* do anything client
    side. Hence, apples and oranges.

    >> Again, apples and oranges.


    Oh. See? I already said that. Please consult a resource to learn what
    that old phrase means.

    > No, now it is static crap vs dynamic crap


    Yeah. That is exactly what I said. Do you now agree?

    >> Sure. Even NS4 supports JavaScript. Now go and write something to
    >> track whether it is *enabled* in all these browsers.

    >
    > I stopped caring about NS4 users time ago. Because NS stopped
    > caring about them even earlier.


    I don't support NS4 specifics either.

    >> Which browsers your visitors use is not germane to this topic.

    >
    > Still it is more germane than your apples and oranges


    Well, if we drop the topic of discussion ...

    >> I don't care what browser the visitors to my sites use.

    >
    > This is bemusing to hear from a person who obviously consider
    > hemself an authoruty in web-design. Didn't they tell you on those
    > HTML courses that checking your pages on every browser you customer
    > might use is the must?


    I do check my pages in many browsers. What you aren't understanding,
    apparently, is you should learn how to *write* those pages to work in
    all browsers. First. It is far easier to write a page that works in
    all browsers, than to patch and hack up pages because you designed it
    for *one* browser in the beginning.

    Obviously, you are having some difficulty following along here, so
    maybe we should just drop it?

    Oh, I've never taken an HTML course. I have, however, assisted in the
    /teaching/ of one.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Oct 20, 2004
    #19
  20. aa

    Neal Guest

    On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:13:28 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
    <> wrote:

    > ALT text is supposed to be a short, concise description of what the
    > image is about.
    >
    > <img "sunset.jpg" alt="Sunset at Malibu" height="nnn" width="nnn">


    Replacement. Alternative. Not description.
     
    Neal, Oct 20, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Roy

    Am I blind?

    Roy, Feb 3, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    536
  2. Michael Wilcox

    Percentage of Browsers with Flash

    Michael Wilcox, Sep 30, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    6,423
    Whitecrest
    Oct 6, 2003
  3. Frogleg

    Free blind browser?

    Frogleg, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    3,088
    Spartanicus
    Sep 10, 2004
  4. Hats
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    533
  5. Roman
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    132
Loading...

Share This Page