people with javascript disabled?

what kind of a percentage these days..

[Warboss Alex]

Hey all,

Just wondering what percentage of users surf with javascript disabled these days.

The front page of my site uses a form to login, which uses a javascript call to submit itself (document.login.submit()), but I appreciate this does prevent users who have javascript disabled to log in to the site, and use the message forum, post articles etc.

How much of a percentage of people have javascript disabled these days? Has anyone any reliable statistics? Is it a significant number, enough to be worried about?

I'll probably change the form to have a standard submit button anyway, but I'm curious all the same..

Cheers!
Alex ...

[Span]

Thu Jul 1 00:05:01 2004 - Sun Jul 18 04:55:04 2004   17.2 Days
Javascript 1.2+: 111021705 (93%)
Javascript <1.2: 241128 (0%)
javascript false: 6893876 (5%)

According to the counter.com. I'd think that's enough to worry about.

[Warboss Alex]

Cheers! I changed the form anyway ..

[Rambo Tribble]

On my site, I recently seen the numbers jump from around 10% to about 25%. I think network admins are reacting to the latest round of browser vulnerabilities.

[Bernard Marx]

That's interesting, and a significant jump. I have certainly sensed a change in the atmosphere of opinion recently.

I'm out of my depth here, so allow me to be vague. I hear that some networks use a kind of proxy that actually filters out script before it reaches it's final destination. Do such users actually appear to be script-enabled?

The best rule is to make all content, available to everyone, in some way. I do believe though, that for some kinds of site, compromises don't have to be made. If your site isn't about making useful information available, but more about entertainment, then it doesn't have to be quite so responsible.

[Rambo Tribble]

I'm basing my figures on a page in my site that is internally linked to by another page. If JS is enabled, the first page immediately transfers to the second page as the first page begins to load (on a slow dial-up, this approach appears to add about 1.5 sec, but I live with it, rather than cobble together a bloated page that supports both). Obviously, some people could have the JS page bookmarked, which would skew the figures down (it is a page that offers real-time river gauge readings). I obtained the percentage figures by subtracting the number of hits to the JS page from the hits to the transferring page and dividing by the total number of hits to the transferring page.

"Responsible entertainment" does sound a bit the oxymoron in the modern context, doesn't it?

[Bernard Marx]

That method sounds removes that uncertainty, except, as you say. in the case of direct linking.

"Responsible entertainment" does sound a bit the oxymoron in the modern context, doesn't it?

..as does "RamboTribble", sir ;)

[Rambo Tribble]

Mama Tribble didn't raise no oxymorons.

[Bernard Marx]

:]

[glengara]

Running with scripting disabled, you do see some interesting things, you also avoid those annoying Google ads... ;-)

[Squashua]

This is exactly why you should be using your

<noscript></noscript>

tags judiciously.