Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Let's imagine MS builds it's own HTML-like Code...No they would NEVER do that
Now they also implement their own JavaScriptThing called VistaScript
Anyway...
But nobody would use it so they call JavaScript insecure and deactivate it by default in their browser.
By this about 50% of your users would start complaining that they can't use the smiley-buttons for mysterious reasons.
They just click on them but nothing happens! Your forum must be broken or something!
So what do i want to say...
You never know what will happen, so 1 extra line isn't that much.
Handyman wrote:
8 people still using Netscape 1?!?!?!?!
Argh! 83% still using IE for the first website
[...]
My site has 59.4 % using IE and 25% using Firefox.
I have watched that number climb very nicely... but not as rapidly as I would hope.
It really depends on which kind of site you are running. It also depends on the country.
In general end-user-oriented (average people) sites IE is above 80%. In my site I have 82% IE, 16% Fx (gaining around 1% per month) and some 2% mixed browsers. I also have 98% Win users.
The source is Google Analytics, which also says that 99.2% of users have JS enabled (I never believed it) and some 92% use cable/DSL (I really don't believe this either).
This said, the <noscript>/hide unavaiable options idea is good IMO => bug tracker?
PS: it seems more a template thing than a core thing; maybe it's already implemented in the new skin... better report it anyway.
DarsVaeda wrote:
You never know what will happen, so 1 extra line isn't that much.
But what If I want to write a website that primarily uses javascript, or is completly javascript? Then I have to re-write the whole thing in HTML for compatibility. Not a chance of me doing that. I could see your point if Javascript was new (and allot of people didnt like it when it was), but Javascript has been around for a long time, and has few bugs and security exploits. There is really no reason to disable it.
What about CSS? Why don't people disable it? Its practically the same situation.
DarsVaeda wrote:
You never know what will happen, so 1 extra line isn't that much.
But what If I want to write a website that primarily uses javascript, or is completly javascript? Then I have to re-write the whole thing in HTML for compatibility. Not a chance of me doing that. I could see your point if Javascript was new (and allot of people didnt like it when it was), but Javascript has been around for a long time, and has few bugs and security exploits. There is really no reason to disable it.
What about CSS? Why don't people disable it? Its practically the same situation.
You don't need to re-write the whole thing.
Only use Javascript when you need to... but there are plenty of times when it's needed, so I just put in big red letters
Have you ever written a website in Javascript? Obvously not, looking at your statement.
A completly javascript website (or one that heavily uses javascript) can be a very powerful thing, including such things as AJAX (A maricle for 56k users), so long as you do it cross-browser. You can do some really cool things. If you wanted that site to work for non-javascript users, you would basically be forced to re-write the entire website in html as an alternate.
Even In allot of websites I have built, if you were just to say "enable javascript for this feature" in place of javascript, the page would be covered with nasty messages. Or what if you have a javascript drop-down naviagtion? You would have to re-write it in HTML which is fine, but the implementaton would be ugly and huge most likely.
Really though this is straying from my initial thought which was more along the lines of "What is the point of disabling javascript?".
But what If I want to write a website that primarily uses javascript, or is completly javascript? Then I have to re-write the whole thing in HTML for compatibility. Not a chance of me doing that. I could see your point if Javascript was new (and allot of people didnt like it when it was), but Javascript has been around for a long time, and has few bugs and security exploits. There is really no reason to disable it.
What about CSS? Why don't people disable it? Its practically the same situation.
I don't understand your point. I have disabled js and i'm glad i can do.
Why would exists "noscript" for Firefox then anyway if no one disables js?
And what is so hard about putting one global message with one line into your site that says:
"<noscript>This site uses JavaScript, please turn it on to use the features.</noscript>"?
This thread is not about if you should use js or not! I use it on many sites.
This thread is about a message that should appear if you don't have js activated!
Because i don't like to see stupid ads, because i don't want my browser window to be resized, because i don't like popups, because i don't like my statusbar faked ...
Enough reasons?
Can you now please come back to topic or leave this thread?
Who made you a moderator? All I wanted was a reason so calm down.
I used the built in pop-up blocker in Firefox and I rarely get popups. Ads are easily done without javascript, and these days the adversitsing is so relevant to the content that usually that ads are something you will be interested to look at. Browsers windows are rarely ever resized after being opened, and infact I dont think I have ever see anyone do it because there is no point. Plus in order to resize it, it has to be launched by the authors script, pop-up style, which the blocker will nuke anyway. And having your "statusbar faked"? What is that about?
I can't make sense of why anyone would disable it. Thats just my $0.02, so don't have a hissy fit or anything.
