javascript on

[rcjordan]

Anyone have any statistics on what percentage of browsers have javascript enabled?

[Brett_Tabke]

I did a whole bunch of research on it last winter and was never able to find anything on a mass scale. We ran a generic js based counter that was known to work with every major browser and compared it to server logs. Reading just individual uniques and throwing out known spider agents on 425,000 visitors from oct 15 to March 15, 2000, we found 87% had js on. That figure was 81% for the last full week of oct 1999 and 88% in the first full week of march.

I'd guess it was near 90-93% right now. I doubt it will go much higher than that anytime soon. That leaves 10% of your audience left out.

[rcjordan]

>10% left out

Thanks Brett, I was figuring 8% --but that number was just a gut call, I just didn't want it to be 20 or 30 percent and end up being blindsided.

Those who have been around this forum awhile know that you & I differ quite a bit on "disposable" traffic. I tend to view a loss of 8% as a trade-off, Brett works hard to keep 100% onboard. Comments welcome on this issue --specifically javascript.

[tedster]

One of my concerns is losing people who DO have javascript functionality but won't wait around while the scripts do their thing.

I'm one of those people myself. Too many sites take forever to render useful content while behind the curtain stuff is happening. If I remember Brett's results accurately, there was a big difference between the impact of simple js functions and the impact of complex DHTML stuff.

So, I test my javascripts pretty thoroughy. There's lot's of enticing possibilities I've vetoed because of compatibility problems or long rendering times.

I just learned something new -- that many versions of Netscape linked CSS to their javascript engine. This was non-standard, but the result is that when javascript is turned off in those browsers, CSS goes as well!

Still trying to learn which versions this applies to and if it has been fixed. The article I read was over a year old.

[rcjordan]

>there was a big difference between the impact of simple js functions and the impact of complex DHTML stuff.

>possibilities I've vetoed because of compatibility problems or long rendering times.

OK, so I pose the question:
Will you use a fast-loading, simple js for mission critical items such as site navigation on a HUGE site.

[tedster]

>>Will you use a fast-loading, simple js for mission critical items such as site navigation on a HUGE site.

Are you talking about the situation where a non-js browser cannot navigate the site at all? No, I probably would not, but it's hypothetical for me since I don't have any huge sites and my wallet is not on the line.

On second thought maybe, if I was real confident that the gains I got would make up for the lost traffic, either in lower admin costs or higher income.

Nice wishy-washy decision, eh?

[rcjordan]

>Nice wishy-washy decision, eh?
No, you've answered loud & clear.

>confident that the gains I got would make up for the lost traffic, either in lower admin costs or higher income.