VK wrote:
<quote>
I do not have a clue how to ***make my page work with
javascript disabled*** so you must come back with a
script enabled browser to see a page that probably
isn't worth seeing to start with
</quote>
By reading it in the conventional English I understand
it as: "My page cannot work == produce the intended user
experience without JavaScript enabled. I am a bad developer."
Yes, where 'intended' means behaviour in accordance with the design and
sufficient for the task. Such designs are possible so it is reasonable
to question why that are not achieved when they are not achieved.
Shortcomings on the part of the developer are a reasonable hypothesis in
the absence of other information.
This leads me to a conclusion that any web solution has to
be endorsed first by a fully equivalent server-side solution
(in case if the scripting is disabled). And only then you may
start to develope a client-side based equivalent.
You seem to have a real hang-up with doing everything twice. Doing
things twice is a seriously bad idea because it is inevitably expensive.
An integrated design with a suitably layered architecture can achieve a
totally reliable design with little or no extra coding time given to
accommodating javascript incapable/disabled browsers.
This leads me to the question why bother at all to make a
client-side solution is you already have a server-side one?
You wouldn't be making a client side 'solution'. Whatever happens you
are going to need a back end of some sort to do anything worth wile so
all the client-side code was never going to be more than a GUI. HTML can
provide a workable GUI, and then client-side scripting can transform it
(in virtually any way imaginable).
This leads me to the conclusion that besides some really
primitive form helpers client-side scripting should be
avoided at all.
Only because you cannot understand how javascript can be used to
enhance, and indeed radically transform, a web page (and its GUI)
without introducing any dependency upon client-side scripting. See:-
<URL:
http://www.litotes.demon.co.uk/js_info/pop_ups.html >
- with and without scripting enabled.
Please mark the logical failure in this sequence (if any).
You are looking for an excuse (any excuse) for never trying. But the
question is not how little can be gotten away with (a quick survey of
the Internet as it is will tell you that), the question of interest is
what can be achieved, and how it might best be achieved.
My personal position is that client-side scripting is not
anymore an add-on to the browsing experince.
Your opinion is of little worth. Web sites, web applications and so on,
have a purpose. As a professional developer is would be your task to
know how to best achieve that purpose. Once you know and fully
understand what can be achieved you will find yourself in the best
possible position to make informed judgements about how to achieve the
required purpose.
Your position is that if the purpose cannot be achieved without
client-side scripting running on one or two configurations or one or two
browsers what meat your personal standards then you are not going to
even try. It is a very low standard and so relatively easy for a
programmer as poor as you to achieve, but it isn't necessarily in the
best interests of whoever may be paying you for your inferior creations.
It is an integral part of such experience like online forms
or graphics support. You can disable JavaScript if you really
want. You can disable form submission, graphics support, CSS
support, SSL support, install MS-DOS version of Lynx, make your
own browser etc. etc. This is your freedom of choice, *but*
you shouldn't bother anyone else with your freedom issues as
well as anyone should be bothered with your ideas of
self-expression.
And in e-commerce how much good does it do to be laming the user for
your inability to take money off them.
You want to drive - you need a car. You want to play Quake -
you need a computer. You want to get an adequate browsing
experience - you have to use a standard compliant browser
or IE with reasonnable security settings. You want an omlet
- you have to break the eggs.
And if you want to sell things you want a shop that everyone can get
into. If you want to make money form advertising you want as many people
as possible to see those adverts, and so not only get in in the first
place but keep coming back. If you want a good search engine ranking you
want a site that can be navigated without javascript. And so on.
If the user, any user, can be accommodated at no additional cost or
effort then getting up in arms because they don't want to (or cannot)
use your preferred browser can only detract from the potential of a web
site for no good reason.
PDA and cellphones are all different issue. The current
slogan "Get the same pages in the same way in your cellphone"
is a pure propaganda from cellphone producers. It is called
"aggressive advertisement" ;-)
You personally just paying the price of being between the
first users of a new software / hardware. They are always
paying the highest price and they are getting all bugs,
products recalls and other setup troubles ;-)
There you go again, blame the user when they suffer from your
incompetence and suggest people create yet another version of their web
site when a single version written to take advantage of the
interoperability that has been designed into the technologies used on
the web is capable of accommodating small mobile devices as easily as
desktop browsers.
Richard.
