The use of JavaScript

[SLEE]

Hey everyone hope you are all having a good New Year.

I just wanted to see what your thoughts are on the use of JavaScript.
These days with all the new features coming out everyone wants to use them.
A lot of sites use scripts like Modernizer to allow older browsers to use these new features but it always concerns me about the non js users.
Many designs benefit from the new feautes and also some funcitonality does as well.
Now i am not talking about rounded corners or anything that doesnt really matter if it doesnt display it.
I am talking aout things like HTML5 and Pseudo classes.

HTML5 for example would need to use something like HTML5shim.js for it to work in older browsers but what about the non js users?
Are we at a point where we are expecting users to be upgrading even if they don't use a browser?

[Steve Lampkins]

As a noscript user, it often surprises me how badly the simplest of sites seem to fall apart without js enabled.

[Jem]

As a noscript user, it often surprises me how badly the simplest of sites seem to fall apart without js enabled.

Indeed.

I don't mind if a site looks pants without JavaScript. I do mind if it's unusable - IMO providing a fallback for essential stuff (like navigation!) is a necessity.

[sickpuppy]

I think it depends on the site. You shouldn't expect Google Docs to work in any way shape or form without javascript but a noddy brochure site should.

[Matt]

Why would you browse with Javascript disabled out of interest?

[Dom]

For the same reason they wear tinfoil hats to bed.



Well, that's my excuse anyway.

[Steve Lampkins]

Rough layer of security. You can whitelist 'trusted' sites.

[Jem]

I think it depends on the site. You shouldn't expect Google Docs to work in any way shape or form without javascript but a noddy brochure site should.

Well, yes, that applies too.

re: disabling JavaScript - speed, security, convenience, greater control over what I see etc

[SLEE]

I agree sites that provide service that use JavaScript are a given but sites that sue HTML5 already only have the option of using JS to enable the site to work in older browsers. You can of course devlelop the site with a mix of HTML5 and keep divs with id's rather tha using header, footer etc.

Some companies disable js by default within their network and some users choose to not use it or are using a device that is not js compatible.

[Matt]

I think it depends on the site. You shouldn't expect Google Docs to work in any way shape or form without javascript but a noddy brochure site should.

Well, yes, that applies too.

re: disabling JavaScript - speed, security, convenience, greater control over what I see etc

Hmm, but if the same functionality is being built straight into HTML5, wont you loose that control anyway? Is the speed difference that big these days?

[Jem]

The same functionality is not being built into HTML5. What HTML5 can do and what JavaScript can do are two completely different kettles of fish.

[suedenem]

There are two main approaches to this.

The first is pragmatism.  This is where doing your market (visitor) research comes in.  On a case-by-case basis (for each case will be different; ask a bunch of geeks and they'll be more likely to have JS disabled), consider:

• what proportion of your visitors have JS disabled
• the value of JS-based feature enhancement
• the cost of providing a JS-free fallback
• the cost of *not* providing a JS-free fallback

Assuming that it's a commercial project that you are working on, assign a monetary value to the cost/benefits.  You'll then be able to weigh up which is the most appropriate approach to take; if you project that making the site work for Steve and Jem will cost more than you'll get back, then you might decide to sod them  

The second approach is more normative and value-laden.  As web designers, we 'ought' to be making sites as accessible as possible to as wide an audience as possible.  The best way to do this is generally by using a progressive enhancement methodology, whereby we implement the bare information and behaviour with simple HTML, and then layering on enhancements - CSS, JS and so on - as appropriate.

In reality, a combination of the two approaches may be appropriate, with the normative approach being taken for the bulk of development, with the pragmatic 'business case' being applied when the client requirements go beyond what is possible with simple progressive enhancement.

[familychoice]

client requirements

For gods sake don't ask them, you'll end up with clocks floating in water (today's unusual request).

[Jem]

You'll then be able to weigh up which is the most appropriate approach to take; if you project that making the site work for Steve and Jem will cost more than you'll get back, then you might decide to sod them 

Hehehe.

For what it's worth, I do whitelist sites constantly - either temporarily or permanently depending on the likelihood of me wanting to come back. It's not like I turn it off and sit and stew about shitty developers or anything. My absolute biggest bug bear is people who add content/functionality dependent on JavaScript but make no attempt whatsoever to notify me. Seriously, how hard is it to bung a <noscript><p>this site requires javascript</p></noscript> in there? So many people just don't bother.

So there we go. First step: utilise the <noscript> tag.

[sickpuppy]

Do you really want Steve visiting your site? That's the real question we are skirting around.

[Steve Lampkins]

I'll whitelist you in a second.

[suedenem]

Sorry, you must enable javascript to view this post.

[Steve Lampkins]

What?

[vee]

I design a lot of dental sites and they all want what they have seen on other sites so we do use a lot of javascript.

I do try and always make sure the site functions without it switched on but I am a bit rubbish at including <noscript> tags so I will make sure I addres that.

It does depend on the type of site you are designing though and I think I am guilty of sometimes using javascript because its available rather than because its really needed.

[suedenem]

Adhering to a progressive enhancement methodology will negate the need to use <noscript>.

<noscript> is *so* 2002.

[sarahA]

I forget about the noscript tag. I usually add the comment into a paragraph somewhere relevant (eg. at the top of the site) and then use JS to hide that. Probably not the best way as the site loads before the JS kicks in so you may get a flash of it, but we also tend to ensure the functionality works without it so there's no need to ask people to enable JS anyway.

[m00min]

Adhering to a progressive enhancement methodology will negate the need to use <noscript>.

<noscript> is *so* 2002.

Totally. I tend to build the whatever-it-might-be in straight HTML/CSS then use JavaScript to add a class, thus styling the thing (if needed) for the JS. The aim is generally that people with JS turned off shouldn't be seeing anything that looks broken.