What is percentage of browsers with disabled JavaScript ?

[Roman]

I am wondering if anybody can provide statistics what is percentage of
visitors with disabled JavaScript.

Even more interesting would be statistics of users with disabled
JavaScript making a purchase. I am more likely to purchase from my home
than from work and I think the disabled JS is mostly result of IT dept.
policies.

Is e-commerce site missing much if requires JavaScript ?

 

[Randy Webb]

Roman said the following on 12/15/2006 10:47 PM:

I am wondering if anybody can provide statistics what is percentage of
visitors with disabled JavaScript.

Exactly and precisely ~97.382923% of web users have it enabled while
Exactly and precisely ~1.283757% have it disabled.

My point is that statistics are worthless and most are made up on the
spot and don't always add up to 100%.

Disabled Javascript isn't the biggest problem though. Javascript not
present at all is a bigger problem. PDA's, Cell Phones and the such
without JS support at all.

Even more interesting would be statistics of users with disabled
JavaScript making a purchase. I am more likely to purchase from my home
than from work and I think the disabled JS is mostly result of IT dept.
policies.

I have never agreed with the premise that IT Departments disable
Javascript for any good reason other than some idiots paranoia and most
Intra-nets fall flat on there face with it disabled.

Is e-commerce site missing much if requires JavaScript ?

Not really, depending on who you ask, what the product is and how the
site was designed. If it is designed properly, it works with or without
JS, one just takes longer than the other is all.

The argument is made that JS is to be used as a convenience to the user
and it has some merit, but, with the advent of AJAX and AJAX driven
sites the trend is towards a dependency on scripting, not away from it.
And that holds just as true for e-commerce sites as it does for
non-commerce sites.

 

[Roman]

Roman said the following on 12/15/2006 10:47 PM:

Exactly and precisely ~97.382923% of web users have it enabled while
Exactly and precisely ~1.283757% have it disabled.

"Exactly and precisely" does not go together with "~".

How about information like this:

I sell CDs on my site and 95% of my users have JavaScript.

or like this

We own Amazon.com and 98% of our visitors have JS enabled.

or this

We peddle tanks and warheads and all our visitors use JS.



Randy Webb, with all respect, do you have an information to offer ?

 

[Randy Webb]

Roman said the following on 12/16/2006 10:15 PM:

"Exactly and precisely" does not go together with "~".

Exactly and precisely the point.

How about information like this:

I sell CDs on my site and 95% of my users have JavaScript.

or like this

We own Amazon.com and 98% of our visitors have JS enabled.

or this

We peddle tanks and warheads and all our visitors use JS.
Randy Webb, with all respect, do you have an information to offer ?

I gave it and you snipped it out. I explained my reasons for saying
"Exactly and Precisely approximately".

 

[Richard Cornford]

"Exactly and precisely" does not go together with "~".

How about information like this:

I sell CDs on my site and 95% of my users have JavaScript.

<snip>

If you insist:-

We sell computer software and 0% of visitors to the company web site are
reported as having javascript enabled.


- now, where did that get you?

Richard.

 

[Roman]

<snip>

If you insist:-

We sell computer software and 0% of visitors to the company web site are
reported as having javascript enabled.


- now, where did that get you?

Richard.

Richard, you cannot make a statistic out of zero visitors per month.

 

[Richard Cornford]

Richard, you cannot make a statistic out of zero visitors per
month.

Did I mention either the sample size or the sampling period? You are
certainly not in a position to deduce either from that single number.

Richard.

 

[me47]

Did I mention either the sample size or the sampling period? You are
certainly not in a position to deduce either from that single number.

Richard.

Absolutely. Son, check your math textbooks.