Is Javascript good for your site ? 9

[ice78991]

I've been wrestling with the question of whether to use javascript in my site.Assuming that a certain number of users have javascript disabled, does a reliance on javascript lock out your potential audience?

I would like to implement my navigation code in javascript because it makes my code much smarter. However, it means that my site is inoperable for users with javascript disabled. I have concluded however that I should make my site as neat and efficient as possible and if this means using javascript then so be it. It seems like a bad idea to reduce the quality of my site just because a minority of users may not have javascriipt enabled. I could include a splash screen to remind users to enable javascript if they wish to use the site.

Any comments on this would be appreciated

 

[monksnake]

Have you considered the legal ramifications here?
If you build a site that is unusable by a person without Javascript you are basically breaking the law.

Google will be in big trouble and will be in a cell next to Paris Hilton: Google Earth.

<.

 

[earthandfire]

MarkZK the title of this thread is:

[tt]Is Javascript good for your site ?[/tt]

the first reply (by adam0101) implied that it could (probably would) be beneficial, but was not essential.

ice78991, who posted the question, used the phrase minority of users may not have javascriipt enabled, and I posted a reply from that perspective.

Yes, I do know what forum this is and what Javascript is generally (if not exclusively) used for. That does not make my reply, which was an answer to the original question from the perspective of that "minority", any less valid.

kaht came back with an intelligent argument against my stance, and monksnake an amusing comment - however there was no need for 1DMF's childish comment neither the suggestion from you that I sit in a padded cell.

If I had realised that giving an honest answer to the original question (from a viewpoint different from that of most contributors here) would have caused so much trouble and such childish outbusts, I wouldn't have bothered.

All I can say is this forum should be grateful to adam0101, kaht, monksnake, foamcow, brps, Aptitude, feherke and Stretchwickster who are capable of posting reasoned arguments.

Since my intention was ONLY to answer the original question and I have done that I will not post again to this thread.

 

[1DMF]

1DMF's childish comment neither the suggestion from you that I sit in a padded cell.

try getting a sense of humour as well as a javascript enabled browser!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[Aptitude]

It's called "Microsoft Word" and "Microsoft Excel".

But wouldn’t that discriminate against Linux users and thoes suffering from Microsoftofobia?

The core task that Google Docs offers is that of word-processing/spreadsheets which could certainly be achieved using server-side code.

Exactly who's leg are you pulling here? Yes you could make a server-side only word processor but I don't believe it would fulfil the core task of allowing a user to create a well formatted document in a reasonable amount of time without knowing a whole load of markup codes.

The point I'm making here is that although it is good to try to make your site work without JavaScript, there comes a point where it is just not feasible.

 

[Stretchwickster]

So the fact that JS enabled browsers are freely available to everyone, means using JS is no problem.

Wrong - this is exactly where the accessibility issue comes in!

JS enabled browsers aren't "available" to everyone no matter how pervasive. For example, blind users will use screen-readers which as far as I am aware don't take account of JS. Therefore, JS is a problem to them if it provides core functionality for a site they're really interested in visiting or are required to use as part of their job. It's all about giving every person an equal (non-discriminative) right to access a web resource.

Clive

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." (Paul Ehrlich)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To get the best answers from this forum see: faq102-5096

 

[Foamcow]

So the fact that JS enabled browsers are freely available to everyone, means using JS is no problem.

You assume that 'everyone' can use a 'freely availble browser'. What about mobile devices, screen readers, search engine bots. I've not even got into cognative issues either.

1DMF
I believe .NET is a Windows only thing, but why do you mention it? Sites developed using .NET ultimately deliver HTML to the client. The end user doesn't need the .NET framework for the site to work. Is that not correct?

Monksnake
If you meant Google Maps (GE runs on the desktop) then I'd say the same as per the Google Docs example. You could do it server side, but you'd have to wait for page loads... and it would most likely suck.

Visit maps.google.com without Javascript and they first tell you that some stuff will be disabled. However, you can still type a search in and it will return a map with results. You just can't scroll, zoom in the same way as the full site.

So the Javascript/AJAX is enhancing the experience rather than being the experience.

And just for earthandfire

San Demus football rules!

Hope someone gets the reference
;-)

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Tyres: Mine's a pint of the black stuff.
Mike: You can't drink a pint of Bovril.

 

[MarkZK]

earthandfire,
> 1DMF's childish comment neither the suggestion from you that I sit in a padded cell.
Actually, if you want to be pedantic, I posted sit in a padded cell followed by a " ", which I used to indicate a "joke".

1DMF put it better than I ever could, so...
>try getting a sense of humour as well as a javascript enabled browser!

 

[monksnake]

I like this thread, it's full of anger.

Foamcow

San Demus Football does rule.... and you get an F on your report.

<.

 

[Foamcow]

No, Ghengis made sure I aced it.

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Tyres: Mine's a pint of the black stuff.
Mike: You can't drink a pint of Bovril.

 

[1DMF]

hey Monk, don't be angry , we all friends here really

you could be right foamy, i don't know enough about .net, but I thought for it to all work you need the .net framework installed on the client, is this not the case?

I guess VBScripting in browser was a better example of saying, you MUST have windows to run it, so any commercial website using VBScript is breaking the law as it forces you to have windows, is that right?

incase you were getting upset monksnake................ this is not a rant , just a perspective......

now if we're talking disability that's a completely different kettle of fish.

it is not my fault a blind persons screen reader is not capable of JS, it's about time disabled peoples equipment worked better and kept up with current technology.

Do you beleive when we switch over to digital TV signal your analog TV should still receive a picture as you'd paid for a licence, maybe the answer is yes , but the reality is it won't and that's the way it is like it or not!

it is also not acceptable to try to treat disable people as though they are not, if they were the same we would all be blind.

If we are all equal and there is no special treatment or allowances made for disabled and non-disabled , shall we all start parking in disabled persons parking bays, if i'm not allowed, that would be discrimination against me not being disabled wouldn't it , you cannot apply logic in such a manner, abled and disable people ARE different and have different needs, require allowances etc..

I'm not in the business of suppying services to disabled people, I wouldn't know where to start, that should be left to the professionals in that field, and no-one can expect anyone else to automatically become an expert in that field, just to write a website!

but , if the truth be know, I understand what your're saying foamy, you know I hold you in the highest respect for all your advice and help over the years!

Which is why I now have one site X/HTML 1.1 , CSS not tables, and the only JS is to validate the form, no JS it just means they can submit a blank form, and if we get a blank for, well we won't be getting in touch with who ever submitted it, now that's not bad for me you have to admit, eh foamy...come on you know it is.... king of everything you shouldn't do actually done something right for once - woohoo.

TYVM Foamy, you have taught me well, I still love JS though and nothing you say will stop me having an affair with it!!!! so




"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[kaht]

Wow, I go home for the evening and came back to the thread doubled in size. Fun times.

earthandfire - I'm glad you didn't take offense to my post, I was a bit concerned about that after I reread it (after posting of course....). I really just wanted to drive home that users are really missing out on a lot of cool stuff if they leave js disabled 24/7.

Everything else has pretty much been said in this thread, so I don't really have anything else to add.

-kaht

Lisa, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That's the American way. - Homer Simpson

http://www.silkypups.com

 

[Foamcow]

1DMF
Thanks for the compliments but Oh lord!

it is not my fault a blind persons screen reader is not capable of JS, it's about time disabled peoples equipment worked better and kept up with current technology.

Hmm. It's not the blind person's fault either. I don't think there is any argument at all in this respect. Whilst it may be possible to create a screen reader that can process javascript and translate it's functionality into spoken word I don't envy that task. Think about how you'd go about making a JS dropdown menu be 'spoken'.

Do you beleive when we switch over to digital TV signal your analog TV should still receive a picture as you'd paid for a licence, maybe the answer is yes , but the reality is it won't and that's the way it is like it or not!

I need to check this, but with relation to the switch over doesn't the government (BBC) have to assist people in switching? I believe that if you truly cannot afford to switch then a box will be provided by the BBC either free of charge or at a heavily subsidised cost.
Up to the time of analogue switch off there is no 'requirement' for having a digital box so there is no issue.

If we are all equal and there is no special treatment or allowances made for disabled and non-disabled , shall we all start parking in disabled persons parking bays, if i'm not allowed, that would be discrimination against me not being disabled wouldn't it , you cannot apply logic in such a manner, abled and disable people ARE different and have different needs, require allowances etc..

No, no, no! You are only discriminated against if there is no reasonable alternative. In the case of parking spaces one tends to find non disabled parking bays too. Equally, disabled spaces are often provided as a courtesy - I'm not sure they are a requirement since theoretically a 'normal' space could be used by a disabled person.

Also, it is precisely because able and disabled bodied people have different needs that you shouldn't build a site that effectively excludes based on available technology.

Nobody is suggesting you should build a site just for disabled or just for able bodied users. Rather you should employ techniques that accomodate both groups of users. With the technologies we have available this is absolutely possible with proper design and consideration.

I'm not in the business of suppying services to disabled people, I wouldn't know where to start, that should be left to the professionals in that field, and no-one can expect anyone else to automatically become an expert in that field, just to write a website!

Correct me if I'm wrong but does your employer not sell insurance policies to disabled people? If a blind person rang up and wanted a policy would they refuse?
I think not. So is it reasonable that if an able bodied user can buy a policy online why can't the blind user?

Granted that there is an alternative option, i.e. the telephone and you could use a noscript tag to display a simple HTML message about calling (a freephone number) in order to buy a policy.

Better still, code the system so it works without Javascript.

Like it or not, you are in the business of building sites for disabled users if you are making sites selling services to the general public.

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Tyres: Mine's a pint of the black stuff.
Mike: You can't drink a pint of Bovril.

 

[Stretchwickster]

I couldn't agree more - very well put Foamcow - a star for you!

Clive

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer." (Paul Ehrlich)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To get the best answers from this forum see: faq102-5096

 

[MarkZK]

>it is also not acceptable to try to treat disable people as though they are not, if they were the same we would all be blind.

Can we make it so we would all have 2020 vision instead ?

 

[1DMF]

yup as always you a right foamy, and as you say as long as they can call the number, which is visible on every page via an image and text. so that's that covered.

however, i'm not sure how we would cope if a blind, deaf and mute person wanted to contact us.

I think they may need to get an able bodied person to contact us on their behalf, or is that not allowed?

Better still, code the system so it works without Javascript.

- I did , that's what I said, finally I think I got it right, and it's all down to you and the usual suspect who have helped make me a better coder, well it wasn't difficult, i couldn't have got any worse now could I!






"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[1DMF]

Can we make it so we would all have 2020 vision instead ?

well hopefully technological and medical advances will make that reality in the not too distant future.

Let's just hope any implants that may be invented don't require a windows platform or JavaScript to work eh!

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[Aptitude]

Did the court hearing the National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation case in California come to a conclusion yet?

 

[1DMF]

interesting, though as foamcow pointed out if you could ring a number or send an email to place and order or make an order enquiry, would that not suffice.

I sell MP3's as a hobby, could I get sued by a deaf person because they cannot hear my products?

It would seem odd a comapny could get sued for their website not being accesible by every man and his dog, if the web was not the only means in which to enquire and purchase any given product.

Which from reading that link, the comapany in question is using as a defence ("bricks & morter" stores).

It's intersting if UK law will follow suit, USA is renowned for being a sue culture, and UK normally takes a more broader view, though with the current government anything is possible!

Would it be fair if it only applied to companies that were ONLY accesible via the internet, that could be the loop hole they are looking for.

The morals on this however is another matter all together, would be interesting to see what the outcome of this case is and if a bench mark / presidence is set.








"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.

 

[1DMF]

http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/cases/target/062_order_deny_PI_grant_part_MTD.pdf

I found this link with the court ruling, though I am not sure what was upheld and what wasn't.

What is interesting is it seems that the plaintiff was specifically trying to apply california law to the website which is global , so it seems that it is not a

http://WWW law

on e-commerce but a californian law.

There is a load of blurb on how you cannot force a state law on a website for the potential of enforcing a state law outside it's durastiction, it's heavy reading, but that's the jist I got from it.

So I do not beleive there is a major concern at present especially in the UK.

And only part of the complaint was upheld either way, but i'm sure it cost a few bob to defend the case so we might as well do our best to make our sites accessible to all, to save the hastle and expense of being sued.

The morality of non-discrimination should be the driving factor for making accessible websites, not the worry of being sued and associated cost.

Though my employer doesn't agree, so any accessability changes I make to our websites will be because of personal pride in my work, rather than a company descision to meet any 'percieved' legislation or disability requirements.

"In complete darkness we are all the same, only our knowledge and wisdom separates us, don't let your eyes deceive you.