I agree with Mark. Plus, I've also heard it said that there may be instances where JavaScript is blocked from a page (in a business environment perhaps). Not disabled mind you - but blocked. Therefore the noscript tag would not fire and your user would still be left with nothing to see.
Michael "Spell" Spellacy -----Original Message----- From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Wonsil Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:40 PM To: Jess Jacobs Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation > 1. Does anyone see anything fundamentally wrong with this approach? (We > could make this an include, as well, for good form, but I'm trying to stick > to simple nuts and bolts here.) > > 2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior? I like the idea of using progressive enhancement instead of graceful degradation. It's goal is the same but you start simple and add functionality for those who can use it. It approaches the issue from the opposite direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement This is one of the ways to add JS as needed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtrusive_JavaScript Mark W. ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
