| 5:29 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well, a lot depends on what your market/audience is. Without knowing that, anything else is just guesswork.
But a few points to bear in mind: You may risk prosecution for failing to meet disability access laws in your country
You may lose up to 15% sales, all of which will go directly to your nearest competitor (15% is the usual estimate of those who don't use JS)
You may be only partially indexed (or not at all) by search engines (spiders, including googlebot, do not execute JS -- at least not very well)
Your site may be considered quaintly old-fashioned by your users as it fails to address modern issues like accessibility, or fails to work in phones or PDAs.
| 5:34 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 5:37 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 5:55 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Emporor, is your income tied directly to the conversion rates of your sites?
Lose 5% revenue here, lose 5% market share there, it could really add up.
| 6:30 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
No, it's not to hell with them. It's:
<script...> print "<a onclick...submit form code>"; </script>
<noscript> <input type=button ....> </noscript>
| 8:00 pm on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not convinced that it is that simple. I'm thinking of a page that *requires* JS to properly work. Without JS, the page is simply not usable.. it is viewable, but you can't order anything from the page.
From the perspective of style then it is a simple thing to offer JS or non-JS. From the perspective of functionality there may not be such a simple option.
| 3:31 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 3:35 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't worry about them.
| 3:38 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with you digitalv, I don't think many people know how to turn it off.
| 5:11 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I suppose whether 0.5% is significant or not depends on the size of the whole pie.
| 5:25 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
noscript section is not a bad idea.
Same idea as with the CSS - even if the site looks terrible, make sure that it is navigable and logical, not only for the bots, but also for those using screenreaders and similar.
| 5:55 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Agree with Encyclo, may be particularly relevant when submitting to Y! (free) and DMOZ.
I surf JS disabled, but will enable it where I must, also saves me seeing all those *%@$* Ads by GOOOOGLE ;-)
| 6:09 pm on Oct 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Know your audience, is all I can say. There are a lot of paranoid corporate IT departments out there, especially in government. At least one state didn't allow persistent cookies and at least one company I've worked at blocked .js files until only months ago. And there are still those whose work machines are Pentium IIs running NT4 or Windows 95, especially in the military and in the U.S. federal government.
Most of those workers, of course, have fully connected machines at home, and aren't supposed to be spending their workday shopping online. But there's no need to be rude about it (for instance, the sites that won't let me in unless I "upgrade to Netscape 6.1 or higher" when I am using Mozilla 1.4).
| 2:05 pm on Oct 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A sign of things to come?
A site that works without JS not only has greater reach, it may save you a lot of late-night recoding one day.
| 1:11 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Victor's posts disturb me greatly.
Where on earth did that number come from?
Yeah, sure. Microsoft is going to break half the pages on the Internet - including their own - with it's next release. Please, give me a break. What nonsense.
Look, I don't know what exactly it is that you're trying to achieve but citing phoney numbers and silly scenarios doesn't do anyone in this forum any justice.
People come to this site hoping for informed, truthful advice on technical issues that can effect many, many users.
| 4:17 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Previous discussions on this site, values range up to 15%:
Thecounter is currently counting 9%:
That appears to be up from 4% since the beginning of the year:
They are global statistics. What really matters is what is the percentage for your potential audience....that's the count for all your competitors, not just your site.
| 6:38 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Both have robots.txt the same.
The html has been fully index by all the major search engines.
| 7:52 am on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Think of most e-Commerce sites. You see 20 products on a page, three of which might be what you need. How do you check them out? Click the first one, maybe click another link for more info, then the back button, then maybe another back button, then click the second product, then go back, etc. Yeah, I know there are possibilities with tabbed browsing and new windows, but I'm not talking about how YOU shop, I'm talking about how typical *customers* shop.
By contrast I've built some dynamic sites where customers can browse through pictures and descriptions of multiple products all on the same page. They see 10-20 thumbnails, then click any for a bigger picture and more info -- without having to wait for another page to load, and without losing their place because they didn't go anywhere.
Sorry if any of this is too forward but it's past my bedtime and my diplomacy filter already turned in for the night.
| 1:09 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> No way am I going to cater to the 5% at the expense of the 95%.
Then lose 5% of your sales. Simple, in theory.
Not so simple in reality: you will lose more than 5% of sales. Think about it logically...you may be surprised.
| 1:56 pm on Oct 22, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 6:21 pm on Oct 23, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<<<< There are a lot of paranoid corporate IT departments out there,
No, there's a lot of smart IT departments out there, that's a sign of a good windows network admin, not a paranoid one. One who takes the time to read things, including most of the latest major IE security holes, which almost universally recommend turning off all active scripting, and active x. Turn them off, no problems with a lot of stuff, leave them on, lots of problems.
| 1:35 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Where did you read this "standard stat" and what makes it reliable?
Also, does it distinguish between browsers and spiders?
Also, before getting into web work, I was a well-paid network admin, engineer and consultant for several large companies.
What you are saying about disabling activex and scripting just doesn't jibe with what I've seen on the job.
Once again, you don't offer specifics about the problems that one avoids by disabling these things.
What are they?
| 2:15 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MichaelBlueJay thank you for a breath of fresh analytical air.
Relying on thecounter's stats is a big mistake, methinks.
Firstly, what you are quoting as "global" statistics are global only to those who subscribe to thecounter's service.
One thing just does not logically follow the other.
Sorry. Silly. But hey, in the twelve years or so I've been in Information Technology by far the hardest part has been obtaining authoritative, unimpeachably accurate information. It's incredibly hard to get in this field for some reason. Rumor prevails.
Do you really want to make decisions based on statistics from one source?
| 2:26 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
stats, library file loads, site css versus site js
<<< Also, does it distinguish between browsers and spiders?
<<< What you are saying about disabling activex and scripting just doesn't jibe with what I've seen on the job.
<<< Once again, you don't offer specifics about the problems that one avoids by disabling these things.
What are they?
You're kidding, right?
| 8:49 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Relying on thecounter's stats is a big mistake, methinks. |
That's true. Relying on one data point is not good.
But give me some equally good reasons for discarding that one data point in favor of the one or two others that have been quoted here.
It may be explainable, it may need a site redesign. Right now, it needs better research, for those who care about it.
| 8:59 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You may lose up to 15% sales, all of which will go directly to your nearest competitor (15% is the usual estimate of those who don't use JS) |
I'd quite like to know where those figures come from... My estimate is closer to 0.5%...
Sure, you'll miss out all traffic from most public internet kiosks and some very paranoid companies. But building a search form with multible dropdowns without JS is a bit of an ask IMO. What are you going to use? Flash & Xml?
| 9:55 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Stats are always misleading.
The argument seems to be very much along the lines of 'switch JS on or go elsewhere'. Well, would you turn your Firewall and Antivirus off to visit my site? I am sure you wouldn't. But there are people who believe (and to some degree it is true) that JS can install viruses on the computer. They won't turn it on to visit your site, a person or company they probably know nothing about, when some believe it is a security risk.
(I know of one person who refused to shop, or even enter the sites of Dell or Amazon because of the security fear over cookies!)
| 10:30 am on Oct 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Back to your original question - on using js since you want to submit using a text link - couldn't you avoid the js / nojs dilemma by using an image as the input button, in the same bgcolor / font as the rest, so it looks like a text link? This way you don't even have to decide about js or no js.
| 6:45 pm on Oct 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 (  2 ) > > |