DHTML verses JAVA menu 3

[techhead100k]

Would it be better to use JAVA or DHTML for deployment of menu structures?

Do DHTML menus get outdated by newer browsers and therefore have to be redone?

Do many users turn java off in their browsers and thus would not be able to see / use the menu system?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Charlie

 

[dwarfthrower]

In my opinion, DHTML wins hands down. A java applet for menus would add nothing to your site but load times.

DHTML is supported by all the latest browsers and while everything has a useby date, I've heard nothing of DHTML being phased out. It is worthwhile remembering however, that DHTML is not a standard, but a Marketing term used by browser development companies. D(ynamic)HTML simply refers to the manipulation of the Document Object Model (HTML) with some sort of scripting language (most frequently JavaScript). So while the HTML standard may go through revisions, and JavaScript may be replaced sometime in the future with something else... DHTML will simply adapt to mean whatever can be done at the time.

While not many users actively switch off Java -

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/java.php

- the increased load times caused by a Java applet in your page is likely to make some users navigate away from your site by impulse. This, coupled with the fact that a Java applet would be more inaccessible to people who are vision impaired / on a slow connection adds up to a big 'no' when it comes to using Java for navigation.

 

[Mr3Putt]

I could not agree more (with dt)... pin a * on you.

While many scripted Menu solutions stink (see

http://www.bondmarket.com

for a sample... yikes!), they're still generally better than Java Applet solutions. Why? Because load time is, and will continue to be, King.

Creating menuing systems takes quite a bit of time and plenty of effort, especially to render pop-up positions correctly cross-browser/cross-platform. But, once you've got something that works, it should work for a pretty good, long time.

I also see more volatility in Java support than in scripting support amongst browser-makers.

 

[clarkin]

out of interest - what % of general surfers have javascript (and hence DHTML capabilities) switched off?

I've found this for a stats service.. seems a quite high number of users polled - is this fairly representative?

(

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/javas.php)

JavaScript Stats
Thu May 1 00:05:02 2003 - Sat May 31 23:55:04 2003 31.0 Days

Javascript 1.2+: 32815350 (86%)
Javascript <1.2: 128196 (0%)
Javascript false: 5170035 (13%)

So, 13% of general surfers have javascript disabled (or are using a browser that either doesn't support it or isn't showing up in these stats as supporting it). That's a bit too high to ignore ..
For me non-javascript surfers would ignore stuff from dynamic menus to client side form validation.. anyone able to corroborate / shoot down this stat?




Posting code? Wrap it with code tags: [ignore]

[/ignore][code]CodeHere

[ignore][/code][/ignore].

 

[dwarfthrower]

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics... Server stats are not immune.

The interpretation that this 13% are general surfers like you and me is erroneous. The bulk of this category would be comprised of search engine spiders and other web robots that have no need for javascript - or even a user experience save for finding the next link.

 

[clarkin]

good point - but how much is the 'bulk' ?

So, can anyone use this to give an estimated % of users (ie people - not spiders) without javascript enabled?

Or can anyone find a better javascript stat page that (somehow) excludes spiders?

I'll start a new thread in javascript forum if I don't have any luck here .. nothing like thread hijacking


Posting code? Wrap it with code tags: [ignore]

[/ignore][code]CodeHere

[ignore][/code][/ignore].

 

[dwarfthrower]

Have a flick through these search results:

http://www.google.com.au/search?num...=all&q="User-Agents"+2003+"Usage+Statistics+"

Search engine spiders make up anywhere between around 5 and 30% of traffic.

 

[grtammi]

How many people these days have javascript turned off anyways? Frankly, I could care less. Design your pages (full of Javascript ... hehehe), and test for Javascript enabled when browser first loads - use a javascript statement to redirect user to correct page, otherwise, they'll see a POLITE (right? ) message telling them that they have Javascript disabled, and &quot;to fully enjoy the mass quanities of code we have on web page for you, dear User, you must turn your Javascript back on.&quot; ... or something of sort.

I just thought of a good description for Javascript ... for the most part anyways: &quot;Javascript is to the Web as fuel is to your vehicle.&quot; - well, good description for a couple of us anyways ... lol.

Just my 2 cents worth - and now that I'm broke ...

Greg


Boss quote from an office meeting: We're going to continue to have these meetings until we figure out why no work is getting done ...

 

[dwarfthrower]

Good point, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. I design database-driven web applications for intranet/extranet sites. So I have the luxury of telling my users that the requirements for using my sites are x, y and z.

Internet site developers don't have the same luxury or do they? I know if I was developing public domain sites I wouldn't give a rat's proverbial about people who knowingly switch off a key browser feature. If someone turns JavaScript off, they don't see my sites - boo hoo. Alternately if someone wants to view my site using Netscape Navigator 2.0, why should I care if the site doesn't display. If people are too lazy/stubborn/weird to download a recent version of a standards-compliant browser (they are free after all) and use it with it's intended feature set switched on. Why should we triple our programming workload just to accomodate their preferences?

 

[clarkin]

yep good points, and I agree with the idea of designing pages which work according to standards (and IMO that includes supporting javascript), and NOT so that they will work on every possible variation of settings/browsers users could use.

However the reason I would like to find out an estimated % stat is should I BOTHER with something like a redirect if javascript = enabled. If the % is really low then no I wouldn't. 13% .. maybe.


Posting code? Wrap it with code tags: [ignore]

[/ignore][code]CodeHere

[ignore][/code][/ignore].

 

[grtammi]

I understand you clarkin, but from a programmer's point of view, we're supposed to think of all angles (even though half the time we're not told about them), and make sure we throw some sort of fail-safe into the program.

I mean, really, how good does this look: you develop you're site, and your boss (being the computer illerate person that most, but not all, of them are) decides to take a look at home from his javascript disabled browser ... and gets nothing ... or a page with no navigation and / or a ton of errors, because your DHTML menus don't run ...

Error out gracefully, as my first CS professor once told me ...

Greg


Boss quote from an office meeting: We're going to continue to have these meetings until we figure out why no work is getting done ...

 

[dwarfthrower]

A differing programmer's view: Software has minimum requirements. If the user refuses to upgrade their machine / operating system / application environment they don't get to run the software.

Error out gracefully by all means, but don't bend over backwards to support users who are too stupid / bloody minded to use the software intelligently.

 

[mennocdgnl]

If you want your site to be found by search engines don't use a javascript to filter javascript disabled browsers: the search engine spiders will not be redirected...

 

[ChrisHunt]

&quot;The bulk of this category would be comprised of search engine spiders and other web robots that have no need for javascript - or even a user experience save for finding the next link.&quot;

But that's the point isn't it? If search engine spiders can't read your navigation menu because it's all buried in Javascript they won't be able to &quot;find the next link&quot; and your pages will go unspidered.

&quot;Javascript is to the Web as fuel is to your vehicle.&quot;

No, Javascript is to the Web as chrome is to your vehicle. Nice to have, makes it look much prettier but NOT vital. After all, it's perfectly possible to build a fully functioning web site without any Javascript at all.

Now I've little sympathy for the paranoid types that switch javascript off, still less for the paranoid sysadmins who enforce such a policy and should know better, but I recognise they exist and act accordingly. Why turn people away from your site when you don't have to. As any reader of Dilbert cartoons will know, stupid people are a lucrative market segment !

My approach to non-javascript users is the same as to old browser users: the site is usable, though it may be more awkward to get around and will almost certainly be less pretty. If you have to use javascript for navigation, provide some alternative way of getting around using ordinary <a href...> tags, for example via a site map page accessible from the home page.

I use server-side solutions wherever possible, and try to rely as little as possible on what the end user may, or may not, have installed on their browsers.

-- Chris Hunt

http://www.extracon.com

http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk

http://www.napitalia.org.uk

http://www.leicesteryha.org.uk

 

[petey]

A star for Chris's post. I think that's a good approach. With current browsers, you can create dynamic menus with regular HTML, CSS and a little dash of js, as devedge.netscape.com has done.

http://www.drpeterjones.com/

News and views of some obscure guy

 

[Wullie]

Star for you Chris, well said!

Wullie

http://www.necomputers.org.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.co.uk

http://www.freshlookdesign.com

http://www.whiland.co.uk

The pessimist complains about the wind. The optimist expects it to change.
The leader adjusts the sails. - John Maxwell