Silly question perhaps - java script

**DimPrawn** · 28 August 2008, 15:35

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Code:

JavaScript Statistics
There are no absolute trends about the use of JavaScript. Some users have scripting turned off. Some browsers don't support scripting:

Date JavaScript On JavaScript Off 
January 2008 95% 5% 
January 2007 94% 6% 
January 2006 90% 10% 
January 2005 89% 11% 
January 2004 92% 8% 
January 2003 89%  11% 
January 2002 88% 12% 
January 2001 81% 19% 
January 2000 80% 20%

**DaveB** · 28 August 2008, 15:37

Originally posted by scooterscot View Post

Now I'm assuming everyone enables their browsers to display java script animations and like but I'm now thinking perhaps not everyone does and thus it would not best to include such an app into my page.

Would you agree?

PS: apologies for not mentioning house prices or social prejudge etc etc

Anyone with any sense wrt security has scripting turned off. The rest of the mindless herds of the internet have it turned on. DP's figures look about right.

**DimPrawn** · 28 August 2008, 15:39

Originally posted by DaveB View Post

Anyone with any sense wrt security has scripting turned off. The rest of the mindless herds of the internet have it turned on. DP's figures look about right.

Most modern websites (incl online banking) don't work very well with JS turned off. Now with web 2.0 technology (AJAX) they won't work at all.

Do you hide under the table as well?

**DaveB** · 28 August 2008, 15:48

Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post

Most modern websites (incl online banking) don't work very well with JS turned off. Now with web 2.0 technology (AJAX) they won't work at all.

Do you hide under the table as well?

Banking works fine for me without it. Lloyds, First Direct and Cater Allen.

**chicane** · 28 August 2008, 15:52

Originally posted by DaveB View Post

Banking works fine for me without it. Lloyds, First Direct and Cater Allen.

I hear people use the internet for other things as well.

**NickFitz** · 28 August 2008, 16:42

Originally posted by scooterscot View Post

Now I'm assuming everyone enables their browsers to display java script animations and like but I'm now thinking perhaps not everyone does and thus it would not best to include such an app into my page.

Would you agree?

The best (I would say only) approach to incorporating JS is progressive enhancement. Using this approach, users with JS disabled will still have access to all the content and features of the site or application, and JS is used to provide an enhanced experience to users with it enabled.

So if, for example, your animation is intended to reveal content that, if the animation does not run, will never be shown and will not be reachable by any other means, then you should reconsider your approach. It could be that you can cater for non-JS users merely by providing an explicit link to such content, which you then hide for JS users. A more sophisticated approach would have the content visible by default, then hidden by JS as the page loads, then finally shown via animation - a non-JS user would merely see the page before the content was hidden. (Hint: setting an additional class attribute value on the <body> element via JS, and a bit of CSS, are the way to do this without ugly flashing in and out of the content.)

For example, those drop-down menu bar navigation systems (which are the work of the devil) are inaccessible to non-JS users. However, the top-level section heading from which the menu descends can itself be a link to an interstitial page containing the same sub-section links as JS users see on the menu. Thus non-JS users have to click through an extra page to reach the subsection they want, but JS users get a slightly enhanced experience.

For an example, look at the top region of this page: the "Search" link has a downward arrow which uses JS to show an in-page quick-search dialog box, but the link itself still takes you to the full-featured search page if JS is disabled.

(If you want more examples of what I mean, post back here.)

FWIW earlier this year I worked on a poll application for some pop music awards. Due to a last-minute change (actually the whole project was last-minute, but this was literally just before going live) I accidentally broke an aspect of the navigation for non-JS users, making it impossible for them to submit their votes (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

). Precisely one person reported the problem, and I then fixed it, but at the time when that person complained I think something like 4000 people had voted successfully. If we assume (for no good reason) that only one person in fifty with a problem bothers to complain, then that still suggests that an extremely small number of people have JS disabled. Still, they're all potential customers so they ought to be catered for

**NickFitz** · 28 August 2008, 16:46

Originally posted by DaveB View Post

Anyone with any sense wrt security has scripting turned off. The rest of the mindless herds of the internet have it turned on. DP's figures look about right.

Such paranoia is only really justified if you're using an unpatched IE <= 6 on something less than XP SP 2, or Netscape Navigator <= 3.0 (3.01 is OK). IMHO, of course.

(Netscape Navigator 4.x always crashed long before any security risk might present itself

)

**lexington_spurs** · 28 August 2008, 18:23

Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

(mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

).

I always wanted to be a judge but I never had the Latin.

**blacjac** · 28 August 2008, 18:39

Originally posted by NickFitz View Post

The best (I would say only) approach to incorporating JS is progressive enhancement. Using this approach, users with JS disabled will still have access to all the content and features of the site or application, and JS is used to provide an enhanced experience to users with it enabled.

So if, for example, your animation is intended to reveal content that, if the animation does not run, will never be shown and will not be reachable by any other means, then you should reconsider your approach. It could be that you can cater for non-JS users merely by providing an explicit link to such content, which you then hide for JS users. A more sophisticated approach would have the content visible by default, then hidden by JS as the page loads, then finally shown via animation - a non-JS user would merely see the page before the content was hidden. (Hint: setting an additional class attribute value on the <body> element via JS, and a bit of CSS, are the way to do this without ugly flashing in and out of the content.)

For example, those drop-down menu bar navigation systems (which are the work of the devil) are inaccessible to non-JS users. However, the top-level section heading from which the menu descends can itself be a link to an interstitial page containing the same sub-section links as JS users see on the menu. Thus non-JS users have to click through an extra page to reach the subsection they want, but JS users get a slightly enhanced experience.

For an example, look at the top region of this page: the "Search" link has a downward arrow which uses JS to show an in-page quick-search dialog box, but the link itself still takes you to the full-featured search page if JS is disabled.

(If you want more examples of what I mean, post back here.)

FWIW earlier this year I worked on a poll application for some pop music awards. Due to a last-minute change (actually the whole project was last-minute, but this was literally just before going live) I accidentally broke an aspect of the navigation for non-JS users, making it impossible for them to submit their votes (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

). Precisely one person reported the problem, and I then fixed it, but at the time when that person complained I think something like 4000 people had voted successfully. If we assume (for no good reason) that only one person in fifty with a problem bothers to complain, then that still suggests that an extremely small number of people have JS disabled. Still, they're all potential customers so they ought to be catered for

Crikey Nick, it's not even 3 in the morning yet.......

Silly question perhaps - java script