Re: Javascript Use

Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote:

William Tasso wrote:
They may be - they may not. One cannot tell. It is an unknown. That
being the point which I have apparently failed to make transparently
obvious in the above post.


So which is it then - are you "abosulutely sure" that the "site will not
work" for his "next biggest prospect" if he incorporates JavaScript OR
"it is an unknown".

The initial overstatement is transparently obvious...

...as is the contradiction (of your reply).

I think what William is really trying to say, and definitely what I'd say on
the subject, is that making a site which degrades ungracefully in the
absence of Javascript is akin to Russian roulette. How many times do you
want to pull the trigger?

The latest attempts I've seen to gather statistics on this say around 1 in 8
hits (13%). I suspect that might well be skewed low. It never hurts to
assume the user's browser does not have the functionality and make sure the
site works without it, then add it later for browsers that do.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 05:51:44 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
<skquinn (AT) xevious (DOT) kicks-ass.net> wrote:

The latest attempts I've seen to gather statistics on this say around 1 in 8
hits (13%). I suspect that might well be skewed low. It never hurts to
assume the user's browser does not have the functionality and make sure the
site works without it, then add it later for browsers that do.

I've just started a little experiment on my own site to investigate
this. To avoid skewing it towards 'web-savvy' people, I've set it up on
a couple of my more popular birdwatching pages.

It hasn't been running long enough to give meaningful figures yet, but
initial results from the first few days suggest more than 20% with it
disabled. I'll update you in further in a couple of weeks.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/