|
|
Posted by Tim Streater on 08/09/07 19:11
In article <o1Jui.26746$ax1.22335@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
> Tim Streater wrote:
>
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> Tim Streater wrote:
> >>> Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Javascript should be used as an enhancement. When vital elements
> >>>> do not work, then yes, it's time to get rid of the javascript. Do
> >>>> something server side.
> >>>
> >>> Is this a general rule, then?
> >>
> >> A real rule? Probably not, but would you want to risk losing ~10%
> >> of your annual business because visitors couldn't navigate your web
> >> site? It's not an actual rule, but it certainly is good common
> >> sense, eh?
> >
> > Well, it depends, doesn't it? The wesbite I manage at work is a front
> > end to our assets database. It's used by our engineers, finance,
> > development, and operations teams, and by selected engineers of some
> > of our customers.
>
> Your description implies that you have access control to this web site,
> and that it is not a public site.
Correct.
> If so, you can demand that your
> engineers et al, have JavaScript enabled. You can even demand that they
> all use "Internet Explorer 6 and above" if you wish. <g>
Well, I don't go that far :-)
In fact it's unlikely they will be using IE, in my experience, although
I test against several browsers including IE.
> > It wouldn't work worth beans with [without?] extensive use of
> > Javascript, PHP, and iframes.
Typo, sorry.
> That would be your choice. PHP of course is server-side, and not
> dependent upon the visitors' browser. Some people, though not as many as
> with JavaScript, may block iframes as well.
>
> Opera: Tools > Preferences > Advanced tab > Content
> [ Style Options ] > Display tab
> [X] Enable frames
> [ ] Enable inline frames
>
> Firefox: URL: about:config
> Filter: frame
> Change value for: browser.frames.enabled to false
>
> We are saying that an author should not use a technology on a public
> site that will render the site useless for a fair chunk of visitors.
Depends if the author cares (or needs to care), I suppose. They can
always put some caveats on the page somewhere. That said, I can
obviously imagine that if the site is aimed at getting more and more
visitors it's important that it work for a wider set.
I've had no formal training in the area, so it could easily be that I do
a number of things the hard way without being aware of that. E.g I use
cascading popups where the content of popup n is set when the user
chooses from popup n-1. This avoids the popups containing several
hundred items, 90% of which are not relevant. My solution is to use the
results of the choice for popup n-1, to drive what is then loaded into
the iframe containing popup n. This also reduces the load on the
database server, and the size of the downloaded page.
So I'm quite proud of myself.
But then I lurk here, and I see it said that:
1) Javascript evil
2) Frames evil
3) iframes evil
and I'm never quite sure whether that's because:
1) the statements made pertain to a particular set of circumstances
2) these things really *are* evil and I am a bozo for being ignorant of
some other technique which solves all my problems pronto.
Hence my question.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|