@David: I think it is established, with reasonable accuracy, that a very small percentage (~1%) of surfers block Javascript. If somebody wants to make sure that their site looks absolutely perfect to the 12 people that surf using Internet Explorer 6 with a Javascript blocking proxy wearing tin-foil hats, that's their choice -- hats off to them.
As for me, I believe my energy is better spent making my webpages work well for 99% of my sites visitors. ~Chetan On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 12:01 PM, david <gn...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: > Chetan Crasta wrote: > >> Javascript can considerably improve the aesthetics, > > Not for a site that's properly-designed in the first place. > >> usability > > That is one point where JS can provide functionality. > >> and semantics of a site, > > JS should have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEMANTICS of a site. That should be in > the HTML where it belongs, NOT IN JS. > >> so it would be a pity if one disables it just to >> avoid the odd bad apple. > > There's a hell of a lot of "bad apples" out there - tons of malicious sites, > scammers even cracking into supposedly-trustworthy services like akamai.net > and planting attacks. So it's not the "odd bad apple." > >> I never had to disable Javascript because good content is found on >> well-designed sites. The sites with the ugly Javascript are the ones >> that I wouldn't visit more than once, with or without Javascript. > > I've been on a number of sites where I had to disable their CSS so I could > read their content. Sadly, a number of those sites were the home pages of > web design firms! > >> ~Chetan >> >> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Christie Mason <cma...@managersforum.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> From: Chetan Crasta "About 1% of Yahoo's visitors had Javascript disabled >>> (2% for Yahoo USA) " >>> >>> [-CM-] % of Yahoo visitors disabling js canNOT be used to extrapolate % >>> of >>> all web users disabling js. I haven't visited Yahoo in years and I'm >>> sure >>> that's true of a large % of web users. I also suspect that the type of >>> visitor who would disable js is not the type of visitor that is attracted >>> to >>> Yahoo. Then there's information buried in the comments at >>> >>> http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javas >>> cript-disabled/ that Yahoo redirects mobile users to a different page, >>> so >>> that also skews the results. Within my group of contacts, about 30% >>> block >>> JavaScript all the time, probably another 10%+ block js some of the time. >>> >>> You'd have to dig into what % of your target market is also Yahoo >>> visitors >>> and only if that is a large percentage should Yahoo visitors be used an >>> indicator for % of your site's visitors will have js disabled. Web >>> visitors are not homogeneous. >>> >>> But that's not all you should consider. Nothing on the web stays the >>> same. >>> All it will take is another widespread js security problem then % of >>> visitors disabling js would increase. Or maybe another popular mobile >>> device will ship with js disabled as default, or a browser with js >>> disabled >>> as a default, or who knows? >>> >>> Christie Mason > > -- > David > gn...@hawaii.rr.com > authenticity, honesty, community > ______________________________________________________________________ > 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/
