Web design quality standards

On Oct 29, 6:22 pm, Chris Morris <c.i.mor... (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk> wrote:

It's a (less important, but still there) accessibility issue with the
mouse. I was using a web application today [1] and found it helpful to be
able to see at a glance which the last link I'd clicked on was.

I see what you mean. When you hit back, you want to see what row you
clicked.

Of course, I also don't browse with Javascript enabled

Is it a choice? Is there a reason for it?
Thanks,

Charles.

"Charles A. Landemaine" <landemaine (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On Oct 29, 6:22 pm, Chris Morris <c.i.mor... (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk> wrote:
It's a (less important, but still there) accessibility issue with the
mouse. I was using a web application today [1] and found it helpful to be
able to see at a glance which the last link I'd clicked on was.

I see what you mean. When you hit back, you want to see what row you
clicked.

Exactly.

Of course, I also don't browse with Javascript enabled

Is it a choice? Is there a reason for it?

Various reasons (the first three are probably quite common reasons for
it, the latter two maybe not so much), and yes, it's a definite
choice. Incidentally, I'm quite happy to use Javascript in web
applications that I write, in moderation and as an optional useful
extra.

The vast majority of sites I use only use Javascript to make their
adverts more annoying or omnipresent, and/or for optional extras that
I don't care about (or actively don't want, if they mess with the user
interface too much), and work fine for what I want (reading content)
without it. So it's disabled by default and selectively enabled via
Firefox's NoScript extension [1] if a site (or more likely a feature
on a site that I do want) absolutely requires it (my enable list is
very short indeed)

Most web tracker things use Javascript to get more information about
the browser, and some (e.g. Google Analytics) work solely via
Javascript. It's nice not to be tracked so much just on principle.

There's also a lot of recent security vulnerabilities that either
directly exploit weaknesses in the Javascript interpreter or use
mistakes in web applications (all too easy to make in many popular web
application languages) to do cross-site scripting. Again, not
something I want to happen to me.

Quite a few of the PCs I use are relatively old, which means a
badly-coded bit of Javascript (especially now people are trying all
this AJAX stuff whether it's a good fit for their problem or not) can
really slow things down.

Finally, my preferred secondary browsers (W3M or Lynx, depending on
whether I'd find table support helpful or not) don't support Javascript.

[1] It's the reason I moved to Firefox rather than Opera as my primary
browser.

--
Chris

On Oct 30, 8:23 pm, Chris Morris <c.i.mor... (AT) durham (DOT) ac.uk> wrote:

Various reasons

Thanks Chris for the info. I agree that Ajax can turn a site faster if
well used (ie: Gmail) but many times, it turns the web site slower
than intended (ie: Yahoo!Mail Beta; Digg).

Charles.

Charles A. Landemaine wrote:

I'd like to set up a list of web dev quality standards

Seems like a good idea to me.

--
Calande