Good dynamic sites provide a fallback to static HTML, so that even with
javascript switched off, they work. For example, if you use javascript to
submit a form when an option is picked from a select, then you leave a
submit button in there too, for the javascriptless to click. With a touch
of the right JS and CSS, you can then hide that submit button for people
who do have javascript if you like. Similarly, an AJAXy add-to-cart button
on a shopping site can have a normal form-submitting action too, with
javascript inhibiting it if it's able to handle the operation via AJAX.
All modern browsers support JavaScript without having the users to
install a plugin.
And today it would be rather silly to write all JS from scratch. You
find a good JS framework and build on that. Then a good deal of the
browser specific problems are already covered.
If you've got any sense, yes. There are people with no sense. For
instance, try getting the 'show all plans' link to work in Chrome on Linux
here:
http://shop.vodafone.co.uk/shop/mobile-price-plans/all-plans?initialFilters=flt_18monthplans
The problem is with badly-done javascript (nonportable, lacking in
fallback behaviour, or just plain broken). The existence of bad javascript
is not a reason to ban javascript, but i can understand that it is a
source of resentment towards javascript for end users. Especially, as on
that site, where it adds no value - the link in question there could be a
perfectly normal HTML a element which sends a perfectly normal HTTP
request. Mind you, that site was evidently implemented by people who can't
even make the 'showing n plans' text get the count right, so they're
evidently a particularly special breed.
tom
