wevdev1958 is the screen name of a person who has been banned from this forum (under different names) on several occasions.......
Well, that's news to me. I have been here for 11 months now and made over 220 posts and have never received any notification from anyone about being banned from anywhere - and you are coming up with the above accusations just now and without any supporting evidence?
I don't get into discussions about who people really are in forums because even someone with an IQ equal to their shoe size should be able to see that anyone can pretend to be anyone they like in forums if they wanted to. For instance, about 3 weeks ago now, I was talking to a Phillip M about their drug and child abuse issues. I don't suspect it was you I was talking to, but it may very well have been for all I know. I don't know for sure or care one way or the other.
Surely it is extremely obvious that anyone can register as Philip M, webdev1958 or any other username they see somewhere on any website where the username is not already registered and then proceed to say what they like or pretend to be whoever they like.
Last edited by webdev1958; 03-04-2012 at 01:37 PM..
Well, that's news to me. I have been here for 11 months now and made over 220 posts and have never received any notification from anyone about being banned from anywhere - and you are coming up with the above accusations just now and without any supporting evidence?
I don't get into discussions about who people really are in forums because even someone with an IQ equal to their shoe size should be able to see that anyone can pretend to be anyone they like in forums if they wanted to. For instance, about 3 weeks ago now, I was talking to a Phillip M about their drug and child abuse issues. I don't suspect it was you I was talking to, but it may very well have been for all I know. I don't know for sure or care one way or the other.
Surely it is extremely obvious that anyone can register as Philip M, webdev1958 or any other username they see somewhere on any website where the username is not already registered and then proceed to say what they like or pretend to be whoever they like.
I think, bullant, we can safely employ your favourite word - liar!
__________________
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.
If I'm not mistaken, I think that websites that go with this case are fine. I don't believe there are laws that relate to handicap features and required JavaScript codes. For example, small business sites are from the private sector, it is up to non-private sector sites/ organizations etc. to provide features that allow handicapped persons to view a site easier.
Besides, that was not the main purpose of why JavaScript was created anyways. One reason was to add greater functionality to the pages. There should should be any controversy over disablement of scripting, as to simply not go to the site, and/ or find an alternative. Some people want people to get a better viewing experience, or the script itself actually has something to do with improving the security.
OK, enough said, I guess. Sorry, Taro, that your thread has been taken in this direction.
Folks, it took me a few seconds to type “sue accessible website” into my favorite search engine and getting these among the results:
Now, if I find any more posts that aren’t related to the subject and just accusing others of lying, being picky about how statements are phrased, or provoking negative reactions from others, those people will receive an infraction. Don’t make me close this thread!
Hey Taro, sorry your thread was lost. I you could just create a page on your site called nojs.html with a message saying to view this website properly enable javascript.
Hey Taro, sorry your thread was lost. I you could just create a page on your site called nojs.html with a message saying to view this website properly enable javascript.
you will need to put the <noscript> part on evrypage of your website incase a peson follows a link like yourdomain.com/about.html
Unfortunately <noscript> isn't valid in the head of the page. It is a block level tag that can only be used in the body.
To get it to validate you would need to remove the noscript tags and instead use JavaScript to remove that part of the page when JavaScript is enabled.
Unfortunately <noscript> isn't valid in the head of the page. It is a block level tag that can only be used in the body.
To get it to validate you would need to remove the noscript tags and instead use JavaScript to remove that part of the page when JavaScript is enabled.
I didn't say that it doesn't work in some browsers - I said it is invalid HTML - which means that browsers don't have to ensure that it works.
Another thing you have overlooked is that modern browsers provide an option for whether or not to allow meta redirects and so many of those with JavaScript disabled will also have meta redirects disabled.
The safer way to do it is to reverse it and use JavaScript to redirect those who have JavaScript enabled to the page where the javaScript is required leaving those with JavaScript disabled on the original page.
It is not valid HTML. As felgall says, to get it to validate you must place <noscript> tags in the body. Please do not try to teach your grandmother(s) to suck eggs.
__________________
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.
It is not valid HTML. As felgall says, to get it to validate you must place <noscript> tags in the body. Please do not try to teach your grandmother(s) to suck eggs.
I did not disagree if you would have looked. I stated that it works on my website.
I did not disagree if you would have looked. I stated that it works on my website.
You mean that it works in the particular browser you tested in with the particular settings you have that browser configured to use. If you tested in enough different browsers you would eventually find one that applies the standard that therefore ignores the noscript tag because it is misplaced. If you test in any browser that is comnfigured to disable meta redirects it wouldn't work either.
The safest way to have two separate pages with one for when JavaScript is enabled and one for when it is not is to make the one where JavaScript isn't available the one everyone goes to first and use a lingle line of JavaScript in the head of the page to redirect to the JavaScript page. One of the very few situations where it is appropriate to put JavaScript in the head of the page rather than at the bottom of the body.
I believe that HTML 5 is redefining where a noscript tag is valid in order to allow it to be wrapped around styles in the head of a page (the only place where it actually makes sense to use a noscript tag but which is not permitted by the current standard effectively making noscript obsolete until an HTML 5 standard is released - if that is still a part of what HTML 5 allows by the time it does become a standard).
It is not valid HTML. As felgall says, to get it to validate you must place <noscript> tags in the body. Please do not try to teach your grandmother(s) to suck eggs.
check again, your'e thinking of html from the 90s. <noscript> is valid anywhere now. unless you still use xhtml or html4 (yikes) you can use noscript as you expect and validate.
i know this tread got hijacked, but i want to reiterate that the fastest, most accessible, most satisfying to use and fastest to develop sites/apps rely heavily on javascript.
now that JS is making a big move onto the server, it's getting easier to provide non-js versions because you can run the same client templates and dom operations on the server before printing.
I still think putting the client in the driver's seat provides the best UX, but there are decent seo and legacy reasons to provided a non-interactive informational view. You can use other methods (pings, sitemap, non-<A>-linked html views, etc) to populate search engine results, so a js-only site is not always invisible to google and bing. Again, you actually need JS to provide cutting-edge accessibility. Along with that accessibility is just plain usability. HTML5 helps a lot (type=date, progress, sliders, list=, required, pattern, placeholder, etc), but you still need JS to provide those features to sub-par browsers.
generally, when talking about any single-digit subset of clients, you need to weight the pros and cons of supporting that particular group be it disabled users, IE7, no-js, no-css, N4, etc.
The cost of supporting them might not be negligible. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and compelling experience for most is better than a bland experience for all.
who cares if everyone can use a site if it's slow, hogs my data plan, and makes me do extra clicks?
Often certain small groups of users incur double-digit percentages of dev time. I've found that jettisoning the heavy cargo enables the main crew to sail far faster towards that horizon of a perfect site.
in terms of accessibility, the main concept for any site developer is provide keyboard access to the site. Both blind and physically impaired users use the keyboard to navigate. If you can set your mouse behind your screen and use your site in full, nobody will ever sue you. If you find that there's a section you can't get to, a date you can't choose, or that it's hard to tell what link you've got tabbed, you might want to investigate ways to make keyboard navigation more manageable (jumpto menus, ARIA landmark and rolls, tabindex, .hover, :hover{}, href="#x", :focus{outline:x}, etc).
__________________ my site (updated 5/13) STATS (2013/5) HTML5:90.2% MOB:14% IE7:0.5% IE8:8.6% IE9:9.8% IE10:10%
.....unless you still use xhtml or html4 (yikes) you can use noscript as you expect and validate.
What's wrong with html4? It's still the latest standard. html5 is still in development and will be for quite a few years yet. So why use a currently half baked html5 standard which may be different when it is finalised years down the track to what it is now. Consequently, browser support for it is currently patchy at best and it's amazing how many noobies come wandering into forums dragging their brand new shiny html5 code behind them wondering why it doesn't work in all browsers . Gee willackers........it's probably got something to do with the fact html5 is only half baked atm and has a long way to go before it is even close to finished and ready to be used with reliability on live commercial websites.
But this is another issue and has been discussed countless times elsewhere
[/ot]
Last edited by webdev1958; 03-04-2012 at 11:02 PM..
[ot]
html5 is still in development and will be for quite a few years yet. So why use a currently half baked html5 standard which may be different when it is finalised years down the track to what it is now.
[/ot]
i guess my best answer comes in the form of an example.
when i wrote this image editor, it was for a class project in which we had to make any webpage. It was a neat web page, but it only worked in firefox beta 3 (gran paradiso).
my instructor had made the mistake of saying that photo-editing cannot be done in javascript...
there was no chrome at the time (2007), and no other browser really supported the html5 <canvas> tag in full. In short, i was coding to a promise; less than a draft, a single-browser maker's idea of a spec with their own fill-ins to boot.
years later, i discovered that it functioned on an i pad. it worked in chrome. IE got banned for life back then, but i could probably make it work in IE9/10 with minimal fuss. About a year or so ago, I did spend about 20 mins making a default layout for touch-screens that can't use drag and drop. That's the only touches to the code i'd made in years...
the lesson is much the same as from the early 20th century when cars were getting better, faster, and cheaper every year. Many folks said they were waiting for the price and performance to get to a certain level. When it did, they wanted to wait until it got even cheaper. Henry Ford pointed out that cars will always get cheaper and faster, it's a matter of how long you want to walk before you start driving.
__________________ my site (updated 5/13) STATS (2013/5) HTML5:90.2% MOB:14% IE7:0.5% IE8:8.6% IE9:9.8% IE10:10%
Before you post, read our: 
and without any supporting evidence?
. Gee willackers.....
