Next you add the server side code to do the calculations for those without JavaScript.
I don't program anymore for people who have JS disabled, because only some 1.3% has. See http://www.searchenginepeople.com/bl...avascript.html. And those who have will constantly run into problems on the web, so they are used to dysfunctional sites.
__________________ Frank
How to: Target IE in, Position in, Center in, Create a Fixed ('Sticky') Footer with, and Create a Drop-Down/Fly-Out Menu with CSS: Website Laten Maken Amsterdam.
I don't program anymore for people who have JS disabled, because only some 1.3% has. See http://www.searchenginepeople.com/bl...avascript.html. And those who have will constantly run into problems on the web, so they are used to dysfunctional sites.
One site had to pay out many millions of dollars because their site was dysfunctional like that and a visitor sued them for breaching the anti-discrimination laws that applied in the visitor's country.
Most sites work without JavaScript and so when those who can't use your site tell their fields and their friends tell their friends then they will all switch to using one of your competitors sites.
Most browsers now allow you to have JavaScript on or off on a site by site basis and so while most people would have it on for a site they know such as search engines they may have it turned off for all other sites. Just because searchenginepeople looked at sites and determined that only 1.3% of people didn't have JavaScript at all doesn't mean that there are not another 5 or 10% who have it selectively disabled for all sites except those that they specifically allow it for.
100% of people who want to bypass any validation in a web page will turn off JavaScript. So you can't make a field "required" using JavaScript because anyone c an leave the field blank simply by bypassing your script.
If they wish, your visitors can add their own JavaScript to your web page. People could visit your web page with JavaScript enabled for the page and have their script delete your script from the page so that JavaScript is enabled but your page doesn't contain any of your JavaScript any more by the time the page tries to run it.
One site had to pay out many millions of dollars because their site was dysfunctional like that and a visitor sued them for breaching the anti-discrimination laws that applied in the visitor's country.
Sorry, but I don't believe that at all.
Quote:
Most sites work without JavaScript and so when those who can't use your site tell their fields and their friends tell their friends then they will all switch to using one of your competitors sites.
Ludicrous reasoning. Only some 1.3% has JS disabled. And at least half the sites contain javascript, if not much more.
Quote:
Most browsers now allow you to have JavaScript on or off on a site by site basis
No, they don't. IE and FF don't (haven't checked the others).
Oh my, are we having the same old and lame discussion about JavaScript again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
Ludicrous reasoning. Only some 1.3% has JS disabled. And at least half the sites contain javascript, if not much more.
Your argument is based on the wrong perception. First of all, you should not take the bad examples as role models. Then, the fact that another site is using JavaScript does not mean that it is non-functional without. Have you actually tried it or are you just saying things about which you have no idea to state your case?
Also, you should perhaps read the site you quoted all the way to the end and not just look at the first pie chart that comes to sight because it also states:
Quote:
A potentially significant amount of your prospects doesn’t use JavaScript – and you will never know.
If your site’s functionality relies on JavaScript you’ll have no clue just how much business you’re missing because people have JavaScript turned off.
Besides these facts, why would you do a crappy half baked job if you could do a good job? Why piss off people if it wouldn’t even be a significant amount of work to please them, too?
And seeing your ignorance towards other people I suppose you aren’t even following the most basic principles of proper web development/JS programming which are behavioral separation, unobtrusive JavaScript, and progressive enhancement which are actually deeply related to each other. Because if you would follow even just one of those you would inevitably come to the conclusion that you’re putting the cart before the horse.
But whatever, go ahead and do your crappy jobs, and dismiss any advice from seasoned, responsible developers. I’ve stated my case and am not gonna argue any further.
Just because you don't believe it doesn't change the fact that it is true. They settled out of court so no one knows how many millions the actual settlement was but the reason that they settled out of court was that it had become obvious that they would have had to pay many millions if it did go to court. Admittedly they were a large retail chain who could afford to pay out that money but another part of the settlement was that they had to get their site rewritten so that it was functional without JavaScript.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
Ludicrous reasoning. Only some 1.3% has JS disabled. And at least half the sites contain javascript, if not much more.
That statement is meaningless. With most sites if you turn off JavaScript then the site will still work - just it will take longer to use it as you will need to go through more steps - such as actually submitting a form before finding out if it contains errors. You haven't even bothered to see if you can find one of the rare sites that doesn't work without JavaScript but have simply decided that sites that use it require it - which is almost completely wrong.
Most sites use progressive enhancement so that the site works without JavaScript and where the JavaScript makes it even easier to use. Turning off JavaScript on a site that uses it only breaks the site in the rare case where the site wasn't properly designed in the first place. Looks like you are planning on adding your site to that small percentage of sites that break if you turn JavaScript off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie
No, they don't. IE and FF don't (haven't checked the others).
Just because you don't know where a setting is in a browser doesn't mean that the browser doesn't have that option.
To adjust on a site by site basis in Google Chrome click the document or padlock symbol at the start of the address and you get a dropdown list of all the settings that you can change for that site including turning JavaScript on or off.
In Opera you just right click on the web page and select "Edit Site Preferences".
I am not sure how you control it in Safari but the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers indicates that Safari also supports it as do many of the less popular browsers that make up that last 1% of web users. So those using a browser that can't control JavaScript on a site by site basis is a small fraction of 1%.
Obviously your mind is made up and your sites are going to join the small group of sites that are broken when JavaScript is turned off. No point in continuing this discussion when you seem to always disbelieve everything that is true and only believe those false things that you have decided are true (but which everyone who bothers to actually check knows are false).
This is indeed an utterly useless discussion, because it is a totally rudimentary topic -- even big airlines and major hotel chains have their booking sites running on javascript. A topic that in the minds of normal people therefore does not play any role anymore whatsoever. But if you believe it still does, go ahead and knock yourself out.
Yes because you keep stating things completely irrelevant and are not prepared to listen when someone tries to explain it.
Why don't you turn off JavaScript in your browser and see for yourself how most of the sites that use JavaScript will still work for you with JavaScript turned off.
One site had to pay out many millions of dollars because their site was dysfunctional like that and a visitor sued them for breaching the anti-discrimination laws that applied in the visitor's country.
Unadulterated horsepoo! A person of your stature ought not to keep spreading this ridiculous myth around. What evidence can you offer to support your assertion?
I would say that enabling (or not disabling) Javascript in the browser is essential for modern user experiences. It was originally (15 years ago) regarded as a security risk, so the option to disable was provided. Some of the earlier implementations of JavaScript were quite buggy and caused user irritation. It was also used more to apply ornament and decoratation (often inappropriately) than for utility. Those days are long gone - as obsolete as document.write().
I agree with Frankie that if someone has the knowledge of how to disable Javascript in his browser he must accept the consequences. I would guess that only a tiny proportion of normal (non-geek) users would know how to do this, although it is possible that some corporate administrators do disable Javascript to stop their staff wasting time by surfing in working hours. Of course, validation of form entries and calculations involving prices/quantities must be carried out server-side as well - that is nothing to do with Javascript.
There are many features of web-sites which can only be achieved with Javascript. If Javascript was not almost essential it would not exist. The implication that many or most web sites will work just as well without Javascript is absurd. How can AJAX or jQuery function if Javascript is disabled?
It is also silly to suggest that a user who has disabled Javascript may swiftly switch to an alternative site. Many sites are quite unique and have no alternative or "competitors". One bank is not a substitute for another bank! Most banking sites use cookies as additional security tools, and will not function without them. And as Frankie says, big airlines and major hotel chains have their booking sites running on Javascript.
And WTF would anyone want to disable Javascript in his browser anyway nowadays? What benefits does he imagine will arise? It is as silly as saying that you could still use a website if you were viewing it on a monochrome monitor.
__________________
All the code given in this post has been tested and is intended to address the question asked.
Unless stated otherwise it is not just a demonstration.
I thought someone like you would know better, Philip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
I would say that enabling (or not disabling) Javascript in the browser is essential for modern user experiences.
That’s your personal opinion. But the essential reason for a regular website to exist is still the same as 15 years ago: To provide information for users. Why would you deliberately detain information from your visitors if you can easily avoid it? (I’m thinking about things like home page sliders etc. that are not crucial for the function of a website but still often hold relevant information.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
It was also used more to apply ornament and decoratation (often inappropriately) than for utility. Those days are long gone - as obsolete as document.write().
So, is it? Let’s use the content slider example again. I think JS is used just as inappropriately today as it used to be years ago. Just the technology and browser support have advanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
There are many features of web-sites which can only be achieved with Javascript.
Yeah, decorational features like dynamically fading sliders and asynchronously loading content etc. Nothing, however, that would be crucial for the functioning of a website. You could create a site like Facebook that would work entirely without JS – just as an e-commerce site/shopping cart. Not in exactly the same way, of course, but generally nothing would have to be missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
If Javascript was not almost essential it would not exist.
Why can we still disable it then? Browser vendors could just remove that feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
The implication that many or most web sites will work just as well without Javascript is absurd. How can AJAX or jQuery function if Javascript is disabled?
You are asking the wrong questions. Of course AJAX and jQuery wouldn’t work if JS is disabled. The question you should ask is: How can my site function if JS is disabled. Most web developers are adding JS way too early in the development process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip M
And WTF would anyone want to disable Javascript in his browser anyway nowadays? What benefits does he imagine will arise?
I can tell you why: Because they are sick of Google, Facebook, and what not spying on their browsing behavior (by using cookies, for example) and showing them allegedly “relevant” information. Because they are sick of advertising and/or other malware being secretly planted on them. Because they are sick of script ridden websites that are slow and bulky to use.
We could argue forever but saying that JS is crucial for a website to function is just wrong. And even the big airlines and hotel chains could prvide websites that would work perfectly without JS – if their designers and developers weren’t too lazy or incompetent to provide such a solution.
I can tell you why: Because they are sick of Google, Facebook, and what not spying on their browsing behavior (by using cookies, for example) and showing them allegedly “relevant” information.
I don't use Facebook, but cookies can be blocked without disabling Javascript.
I'll stick with my opinion that the tiny number of people who see fit to disable Javascript should accept the consequences of their deliberate decision. And why should I put in a lot of effort to meet the needs of 2% of users? Does not the Pareto principle apply here? I would rather put in that effort for the 98%. None of the websites I have ever created could be said to be "script ridden websites that are slow and bulky to use." I don't like pointless decorative features either, but if they are implemented they put off 98% of users with Javascript enabled and not the 2% without.
Here's an example of a Javascript technique I often use to protect an email address:-
Code:
<script type = "text/javascript">
var goodurl = "";
// obfuscate the url
var urlrev = "ku.oc.xxx"
urlrev = urlrev += ".etisym@ofni"
goodurl = urlrev.split("").reverse().join("");
goodurl = goodurl + "?subject=Enquiry re this website";
document.write('<a href=\"mailto:' + goodurl +'">');
document.write('Contact us by email' + '<\/a>');
</script>
<noscript>
<p class = "protected">Email address protected by JavaScript.<br>
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to contact us.
</p>
</noscript>
If the user is unwilling to do that, then he is not worth bothering with. The idea that every potential customer is worth having is wrong. I prefer to keep awkward so-and-sos away. By all means let them go to a competitor (if such exists).
And with respect, my personal opinion is just as good as yours.
Before felgall chimes in, document.write() is still a perfectly satisfactory way to write the original content of your page.
__________________
All the code given in this post has been tested and is intended to address the question asked.
Unless stated otherwise it is not just a demonstration.
Personally, I too think that JavaScript is a feature that people should just have enabled and personally I don't care about those, who disable it, either.
I think it is not correct to say that adding non-JS support to a website is a trivial task, it is certainly a tedious task, if Ajax technology etc. is involved. Also personally, I wonder if people who care for non-JS users also still care for resolutions like 640x480 or for IE6 or for … – you see my point. It's all possible, but it's an extremely tedious task to do.
All of this changes (better: might change) when looking at it professionally. If a company pays my company to build a website, then support for all kinds of specialties like non-JS users is a topic. But it will only be done if the customer pays for it, it's simply my task to point it out to them that this kind of support takes extra time and will therefore cost more. But this is a topic for planning meetings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIPStephan
That’s your personal opinion.
This is an empty argument because all you are stating is simply your opinion too (as is everything I am saying), unless either one starts bringing actual supporting proof. Being a seasoned developer is no such proof.
There's nothing wrong with opinions anyway. That's what a discussion lives on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIPStephan
You could create a site like Facebook that would work entirely without JS
True, and I could just as well create a site like Facebook for users who decide to disable displaying pictures because they don't wanna waste bandwidth. The question is: Is it worth the extra trouble?
Granted, websites that won't function without JavaScript could at least display a message that reads something like "In order to view this website, you need to have JavaScript enabled". But after that, I don't see why this would be a generally bad thing. If I decide to make my website available only to people with JavaScript, then that is simply my decision. And if I want to enter an eSports tournament, I need a computer. It's the same thing, really. It's just nice to add non-JS support.
Quote:
We could argue forever but saying that JS is crucial for a website to function is just wrong.
Again, a pretty useless statement because you don't provide any proof for this that is better than anything anyone else has said.
Quote:
And even the big airlines and hotel chains could prvide websites that would work perfectly without JS – if their designers and developers weren’t too lazy or incompetent to provide such a solution.
I would think that at least in most cases it's not an issue of developer competence, but simply an issue of money. Management doesn't like to pay and if they see statistics on how many people have JS disabled and how much more it would cost to implement non-JS support, they probably don't do a lot of thinking. I'm not saying that's good, bad, clever, wrong, dumb or anything – that's (imho!) just how it is.
It goes without saying that this little fairytale story someone mentioned sounds like a nice little horror story for developers who don't bother adding non-JS support, but as long as I don't see an actual source for it, I too won't believe that so much as a word of that is true.
Lastly, I think there is no answer on "what is right" here. It just is a matter of opinion whether or not support for non-JS users is a must-have or not. In the end, no one is being forced to use websites if they can't use them without JavaScript. Don't enter a tournament you don't have the equipment for.
And why should I put in a lot of effort to meet the needs of 2% of users?
That’s the point many developers obviously don’t get: it’s not any more effort. It just requires a different way of thinking and therefore a different approach.
Why are you still writing plain HTML and not creating everything with JS if you don’t care about people without? And why are you often writing more HTML than necessary, just to add some JS functionality? Why are you mixing the behavior layer and the content layer when this requires more time in maintenance later on and when you could save that time if investing maybe a little more in advance to keep the layers separate?
That’s the point many developers obviously don’t get: it’s not any more effort. It just requires a different way of thinking and therefore a different approach.
If I implement the same thing both in JavaScript (for comfort) and in other technology (plain HTML, server-side technology, …), there simply is no way around it being more effort. Maybe clever thinking minimizes the amount of extra effort, but doing the same thing in two ways will always be more effort than only doing it one way.
However, I'm willing to change my mind and I'd love to see an example if you have one for me.
Unadulterated horsepoo! A person of your stature ought not to keep spreading this ridiculous myth around. What evidence can you offer to support your assertion?
That page does not mention JavaScript but a lot of the discussion at the time was about how the site required JavaScript to work properly. There is lots of mention of accessibility and working without JavaScript is required for accessibility.
Before you post, read our: 
