Javascript

[Derleek]

A lot of times I will have an idea pop into my head that would be an awesome JS plug-in or whatever. And I stop and think, "thats GENIUS! ... but that would limit the user base w/ all that javascripting!"

 

I mean how many web-browsers actually go and disable JS?

 

Why would they disable it?

 

And do most browsers have JS enabled by default?

[.josh]

I'm fairly certain that the default for JS has been 'enabled' for a while now, for all the major browsers.  I could be wrong, but I do clean installs of FF, IE and Opera on a reg basis and I don't really remember having to enable it.

 

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

 

If you scroll down a bit you will see that % of people who have it disabled are pretty low, and though I don't have any hard facts to back it up, I have a sneaking suspicion that most of those people are of the senior citizen variety, who don't really know anything about it and probably rarely even open their browser all that often to begin with.  IMO.

 

While it is always a necessity to guard against exploits (by doing form validation on the server, etc..) I think we are long past the "Javascript is EVIIIIIL" phase...

 

And TBH, I think the worse threat during "that time" was from like, applets and activeX controls, and TBH I think javascript just kind of got thrown into the mix more than it should have, due to people's ignorance.

 

[Derleek]

agreed.  I mean from what i've read JS has a horrible reputation.  But from what i've seen you can do wonders with it to make the user experience much smoother.

 

I have inquired about similar subjects on phpFreaks and the general consensus was that you should not rely entirely on JS to make your site/script or whatever work.  Makes sense. You don't want to completely alienate ANY % of users.  i'd like to see a survey that tracks JS being on/off based on activity; are the 5% that have JS turned off doing 1% of the browsing? or is it 10%(doubtful) or is it the same?

 

Why do browsers even allow users to turn it off? it seems like it would be extremely beneficial to make it a standard to have it on...

[Stooney]

I make sure that most things I write work without JS, then use JS to enhance it.  If it's disabled they get the basic version, otherwise they get the 'good' version.  Either way the job can still get done.  Paint job or not, the car gets from point a to point b the same way.

[ober]

Go ahead and ramp up on the JS interfaces.  Fantastic things are on the horizon: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10023723-92.html

[Derleek]

good to read ober...

 

Perhaps one day some JS newbie won't have to ask these questions hahaha

[Daniel0]

Why do browsers even allow users to turn it off? it seems like it would be extremely beneficial to make it a standard to have it on...

 

Security, freedom of choice, technical limitations. links for instance does not support Javascript. People might want to disable it to prevent things like XSS entirely and some people might just think that Javascript is annoying.

 

Doing unobtrusive Javascript isn't that difficult. You could even make a secondary HTML-only version like Gmail does.

[Derleek]

 

Doing unobtrusive Javascript isn't that difficult. You could even make a secondary HTML-only version like Gmail does.

 

I understand and agree with that, it just seems like there are would be some nice benefits for the development community (and in turn the user community) to make Javascript mandatory. 

 

I'd like to look into some of those specifics (mostly XSS, i am guessing this is a major security issue).  I'm not sure how big this or any issue really is.

 

As for some thinking JS is just annoying, personally i'd like to provide a simple (hey turn this crap off, button) instead of accounting for anyone who does not support the language altogether.  If someone thinks JS is annoying they are probably focused on the stuff that they can see (which can be annoying), but that prevents any features that has the potential to make the user experience much better (don't know much about ajax, but i beleive this could fall under that category).

 

Any security leaks could then be addressed independently.  Then again it is probably the case that this is not possible. (just thinkin outloud)

 

Whether this is worth doing or not for 5% of te community... is undetermined.

 

[Daniel0]

Well, it is of course up to you to decide whether you think that you can live without those users. Here I decided that IE6 will not be supported on the main site for instance. That's a significantly larger portion of the potential users than those who browse without Javascript. Well, they can still view it but it doesn't look very good.

[JasonLewis]

Did you really shut-off support for IE6 users on the main phpfreaks site? That's awesome.

 

For annoying things, you sometimes get people who make a javascript function that just keeps throwing alerts at you, constantly. Really annoying, since you have to kill the process to proceed with your browsing of the internet. Although I haven't had something like that happen to me for a while now.

 

Hmm, this new TraceMonkey will be good for the Sphere RPG Engine as well.

[Daniel0]

They're not shut off per se, the layout is just messed up. Hell, you can browse with IE v1 if you like, chances are just that you will have an incredibly poor experience (as you would with any other version of IE).