| 5:26 am on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
fresh off one of my pages......
| 6:29 am on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Yes this worries us as we are on a hosted server meaning SSI is not practicable and all our dynamic content is string together with JS. Then again, so many sites are using js for navigation that our feeling is that turning of js is like surfing the net with a real old surfboard.
If it is more than 5% in reality, (real readers not the 30% of more of traffic which is from spiders etc), I will cry...
| 8:05 am on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I am sure I am not the norm, but I have js turned off about 60% of the time.
| 12:08 pm on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I too have js off most of the time. The other part of the time it rarely works.
Sean, there are lots js counters out there, and there are lots of stock counters out there. Head to your home page and add a js counter and a regular counter. After at least 2 weeks and atleast 5k uniques, compare the two counters.
"keep your browser turned to CNN.com".
| 4:15 pm on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
> but I have js turned off about 60% of the time.
>I too have js off most of the time.
And I have speakers turned off 99.999999% of the time. But we're not exactly your average surfers, are we? As always, the target demographic can make a huge swing in the numbers.
The site I used for those stats is a travel-oriented one. Tech sites would probably have as much as 10% js DISabled (a guess). I've been doing almost all site navigation via external js for over a year now (estimated 1 million uniques during that period), I've had far more complaints that NS screwed up a forms button versus lack of navigation. For general-interest sites, I just can't find a problem with using js --if it works, there is lots of error-riddled code out there.
| 10:02 pm on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
A lot of the variation can be accounted for by advertising and other JS popups (like the CNN and ABCNews popups). People who visit a lot of sites that do that sort of thing are more likely to turn off JS than people who never run into it.
I browse with JS on and just don't go back to those sites.
Things may get more interesting in the future as browser makers offer more options besides "on" and "off". I'm loving the Mozilla pref that allows me to disable target="_blank" and its variations on selected or all sites. Controls for JS-based annoyances are on the way as well, and I suspect even the pleasant uses of JS (and a few exist) will become frequent casualties of war.
| 10:15 pm on Feb 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>> Controls for JS-based annoyances are on the way as well, and I suspect even the pleasant uses of JS (and a few exist) will become frequent casualties of war.
OK, gmillier, now I'm intrigued. What kinds of js functionality do you see as threatened?
| 1:34 am on Feb 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Maybe I AM gonna cry! We use JS as an external js menu that saves page size and loading time as it sits in people's cache. Also for news feeds. Both, we think, are respectful of people's time and visit. We also use it to provide rotating content promoting other parts of the site and sponsors, giving a fresh feel to the page every time you log on.
One browser now warns you that a "page is trying to open another window" and gives you the yes/No option. Maybe that is one of the functionalities can be disabled. Strongly disagree though that JS is ususally disfunctional.
Much of our js could be replaced by SSI or cgi, but having a hosted server, who keeps on telling us to use Cold Fusion whenever we talk cgi etc ($25 extra a month) ( because "Perl is antique), JS seems to be the only option.
| 5:06 pm on Feb 12, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think it also depends on your user demographics and site topic. People who regularly search for MP3s or *ahem* other controversial stuff, are wise to popup bombardments, so they are more likely to turn off JS.