Forum Moderators: open
Unless I want to build my site to 1996 specs I need to use some JavaScript. I always read that the site should function properly if the user does not have JavaScript (or has it disabled), well, I'm not going to concern myself with those people.
A simple example is this: I want a text link to submit a form, I don't want to use a submit button. I don't know of any way to do that that does not use JavaScript. So what should I do, write a bunch of code that determines if they have JavaScript enabled and if not output a regular button instead? The hell with that.
It's like CSS, if they don't have a modern CSS enabled browser my site won't look right (in fact it will look terrible) but I can't worry about those people, I don't even want them at my site if they are running a computer from 1996.
What do you guys think?
Take care,
Cyrus
But a few points to bear in mind:
Lose 5% revenue here, lose 5% market share there, it could really add up.
<script...> print "<a onclick...submit form code>"; </script>
<noscript> <input type=button ....> </noscript>
It is that simple - give the javascript enabled browsers the style that you want, using javascript - but fall back to a standard button for those users who do not have JS enabled.
It is that simple - give the javascript enabled browsers the style that you want, using javascript - but fall back to a standard button for those users who do not have JS enabled.
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.
I wouldn't worry about them.
In the last 24 hours, 99.24% had javascript enabled.
In the last month, 99.46% had javascript enabled.
Since the beginning of Feb 2004, 99.5% had javascript enabled.
I suppose whether 0.5% is significant or not depends on the size of the whole pie.
However, there are a few caveats: firstly, make sure your entire site is navigable - obviously, the search engine bots don't do Javascript and won't follow JS links. For form submission, I can't see much of a problem, but including a standard submit in a
noscriptSame 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.
Build using Javascript: absolutely. Being over-dependent on it, not a good idea. The site should at least work in any browser, even if unstyled and missing any fancy stuff.
I surf JS disabled, but will enable it where I must, also saves me seeing all those *%@$* Ads by GOOOOGLE ;-)
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).
Who knows what vulnerabilities will lead to stronger security advice to turn off Javascript? Maybe XP SP 3 will turn it off by default except for trusted sites.
A sign of things to come?
Secunia advises users ... disable JavaScript as workarounds in advance for patches from vendors,
[theregister.co.uk...]
A site that works without JS not only has greater reach, it may save you a lot of late-night recoding one day.
15% of users have javascript disabled?
Where on earth did that number come from?
And then:
"Who knows what vulnerabilities will lead to stronger security advice to turn off Javascript? Maybe XP SP 3 will turn it off by default except for trusted sites."
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.
If anybody else reading this thread has javascript enabled/disabled stats from a site they're associated with, I, for one, would be very interested in seeing those numbers.
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
Thecounter is currently counting 9%:
[thecounter.com...]
That appears to be up from 4% since the beginning of the year:
[thecounter.com...]
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.
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.
Even if the number of users with JavaScript disabled is as high as 5%, which I'm skeptical of, which customers are more important to you? The 5% who have JavaScript turned off or the 95% who don't? No way am I going to cater to the 5% at the expense of the 95%. I'm not going to rob the 95% of an awesome user experience because a tiny handful don't want that experience.
Sorry if any of this is too forward but it's past my bedtime and my diplomacy filter already turned in for the night.
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.
<<<< 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.
That's the problem though, the people with javascript disabled when you are talking about standard non-tech users are generally corporate users, corporate users have money, and spend money. If this is a market that you don't want, you can send them our way... I haven't done a site that depends on js for functionality for a few years, so they'll be welcomed.
"I'm seeing the stats fit pretty much every standard stat I've ever read, including the 5% javascript disabled."
Where did you read this "standard stat" and what makes it reliable?
What measuring tool are you using and how does it go about detecting javascript enabled?
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?
Victor:
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.
What sites are they? Even if you take at face value that their methodology for detecting javascript is sound (which I have my doubts about), why would you assume that they represent a statistically valid sampling that would point to the conclusion that 9%
of ALL Internet users are out there browsing with javascript disabled?
One thing just does not logically follow the other.
I mean, I'm sure thecounter reported before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction AND he browsed the Internet with javascript disabled.
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?
stats, library file loads, site css versus site js
<<< Also, does it distinguish between browsers and spiders?
Yes
<<< What you are saying about disabling activex and scripting just doesn't jibe with what I've seen on the job.
No comment
<<< Once again, you don't offer specifics about the problems that one avoids by disabling these things.
What are they?
You're kidding, right?
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.
Personally, I don't have to worry. My sites work equally well with or without javascript.
But if I had a site that relyed on a single add-on technology, like Javascript, I'd sure want a better argued case for not doing extra research into an appararent doubling of the users who don't use that technology.
It may be explainable, it may need a site redesign. Right now, it needs better research, for those who care about it.
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?
Say your site requires javascript to function. Your stats will not include repeat visitors, who will not return because your site does not work on their browser. The number of pages views is likely to be very low for these users because they get frustrated and simply go to a site that does work. Also word of mouth recommendations from these people will not include your site: why would they recommend a site that (in their opinion) does not work?
People who are reporting less than about a certain level probably have sites that don't work without javascript. These figures become inaccurate, unreliable and basically should not be used.
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!)
I also used to switch of Javascript for example using sites that had right click disabled and after that forgot to turn it on again.
So there are many reasons why Javascript can be disabled on computers.
Besides Websites (especially online shops) relying on Javascript often tend to look "cheap". Maybe because of this ugly Javascript Alert boxes.
