RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I'd like to see an example of your code. Keep in mind that as I said, javascript in and of itself is not necessarily inaccessible. Its just that depending on what level of accessibility you are trying to reach and how you interpret the guidelines or requirements, determines whether javascript usage meets those requirements. -Original Message- From: James Holmes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:04 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've tested my CFAJAX driven DHTML with JAWS, Window-Eyes and the popular screen reader on Mac (I've already forgotten its name) and all worked perfectly. On 10/17/05, Sandy Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many screen readers for the blind, can't deal with DOM changes that > happen after an onLoad. I'm not saying that javascript in and of > itself makes a page inaccessible, I'm saying that the requirement for > a page to meet either > 508 or WCAG accessibility guidelines require that the page work with > javascript disabled. ~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221318 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I've tested my CFAJAX driven DHTML with JAWS, Window-Eyes and the popular screen reader on Mac (I've already forgotten its name) and all worked perfectly. On 10/17/05, Sandy Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many screen readers for the blind, can't deal with DOM changes that happen > after an onLoad. I'm not saying that javascript in and of itself makes a > page inaccessible, I'm saying that the requirement for a page to meet either > 508 or WCAG accessibility guidelines require that the page work with > javascript disabled. ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221292 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I'd be interested as well, but I'd think the number could vary widely depending on the audience of a given site. I once had a client with a huge percentage of no-cookie visitors. Turned out they were being visited by hundreds of users per organization they contracted with (which were hospitals) and some of those banned cookies. That same site used Milonic for their main menu for the last four years until recently. I moved them back to html but not because of js issues. -- --mattRobertson-- Janitor, MSB Web Systems mysecretbase.com ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221225 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
Sandy, You and I read the 508 differently with respect to whether it requires a page to function without javascript. I defer to the government's own document interpreting the requirement and giving examples of problem situations and workarounds: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm#(l) It doesn't say that the page must work with javascript disabled, instead it talks about how javascript is beneficial to many government sites but that some ways in which it is implemented that can cause problems. As I'm sure you know, 508 was specifically created because the WAI rules were too convoluted and restrictive. On the up side, 508 doesn't specifically require the page to function without javascript. On the flip side though, because it's not a clear cut yes/no to javascript it's hard to agree on what is and isn't compliant because it requires so much subjective interpretation. For the point of this discussion though I agree with you that it does seem that using AJAX in .gov/.edu can be a problem, which is very unfortunate. --- Kevin Graeme Cooperative Extension Technology Services University of Wisconsin-Extension > -Original Message- > From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:22 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript > > Section 508 has two paragraphs that can be construed with > this in mind for DHTML /Javascript > (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without > requiring an associated style sheet. > (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display > content, or to create interface elements, the information > provided by the script shall be identified with functional > text that can be read by assistive technology. ~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221212 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I like seeing .gov sites written in CF. The reason I think most .gov sites are written in CF is because those contracts are low bid and CF has an advantage there. If you meet the requirements and have the lowest price, you get the job. Mark -Original Message- From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:27 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript She didnt write it, she simply pointed it out and it's true. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12 I love it when .gov sites are written in CF... it makes me feel all giddy. ...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:45 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Sandy... How is having javascript on your website causing a site to be "un-accessible"? That makes no sense. -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221206 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
She didnt write it, she simply pointed it out and it's true. http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12 I love it when .gov sites are written in CF... it makes me feel all giddy. ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:45 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Sandy... How is having javascript on your website causing a site to be "un-accessible"? That makes no sense. -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221202 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
Many screen readers for the blind, can't deal with DOM changes that happen after an onLoad. I'm not saying that javascript in and of itself makes a page inaccessible, I'm saying that the requirement for a page to meet either 508 or WCAG accessibility guidelines require that the page work with javascript disabled. Section 508 has two paragraphs that can be construed with this in mind for DHTML /Javascript (d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated style sheet. (l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create interface elements, the information provided by the script shall be identified with functional text that can be read by assistive technology. WCAG is more direct. 6.1 Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document. [Priority 1] 6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1] For more information see Section 508 http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Web WCAG http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ -Original Message- From: Andy Matthews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:45 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Sandy... How is having javascript on your website causing a site to be "un-accessible"? That makes no sense. -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221200 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
It'd be interesting to see the numbers on how many people disable JS these days On 10/17/05, Ken Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another thing to think about is how/why your users come to any given > site. If I have an ecommerce app into which I'm desparately trying to > pull as many people as possible, I'm highly unlikely to do anything that > might preclude anyone from efficiently using the site. However, if I > have a site that people are using because they need to use it, then > there's less of a problem requiring js or flash... > > --Ferg > > Bobby Hartsfield wrote: > > >Internally as you've said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" > >To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. > > > >Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific > components > >so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global > >usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually > write > >2 versions. (provided that the site isn't dependant on something like > >milonic menu throughout anyway) > > > >Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users > >must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? > > > >On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even > >funny! SQL Injection heaven. > > > >You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error > >messages in that thing! > > > >..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. > >Bobby Hartsfield > >http://acoderslife.com > > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM > >To: CF-Talk > >Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript > > > >I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > >is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > >and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > > >I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and > >use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an > >educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but > >it should be a minimal amount. > > > >Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > >will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > >Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > >their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > >easy. > > > >However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > >version of the page? > > > >I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you > >give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221198 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
Another thing to think about is how/why your users come to any given site. If I have an ecommerce app into which I'm desparately trying to pull as many people as possible, I'm highly unlikely to do anything that might preclude anyone from efficiently using the site. However, if I have a site that people are using because they need to use it, then there's less of a problem requiring js or flash... --Ferg Bobby Hartsfield wrote: >Internally as youve said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" >To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. > >Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific components >so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global >usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually write >2 versions. (provided that the site isnt dependant on something like >milonic menu throughout anyway) > >Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users >must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? > >On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even >funny! SQL Injection heaven. > >You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error >messages in that thing! > >..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. >Bobby Hartsfield >http://acoderslife.com > > >-Original Message- >From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript > >I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What >is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps >and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > >I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and >use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an >educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but >it should be a minimal amount. > >Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it >will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? >Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on >their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very >easy. > >However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS >version of the page? > >I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you >give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > >Thanks > > > > > ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221195 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
So Martin... Care to share with us the percentage of users who have js disabled on your site? -Original Message- From: Martin Parry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:47 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I personally use Urchin web stats on all of my sites. As part of it, it has some JS that creates cookies which are available immediately to a CF page. So the visitor hits the page, the urchin code kicks off and sets a domain cookie. You can then check for the existence of it in the cookie scope. If it doesn't exist you can assume that JS is disabled. Martin Parry http://www.beetrootstreet.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 October 2005 13:39 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript How do you handle non-JS users, technically? Let's say you have a page that requires JS. Do you immediately redirect them (using JS) to a JS-enabled page and then leave the others with ? Or, do you keep the JS and non-JS content on the same page? Thanks M!ke From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/15/2005 9:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Internally as you've said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific components so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually write 2 versions. (provided that the site isn't dependant on something like milonic menu throughout anyway) Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even funny! SQL Injection heaven. You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error messages in that thing! .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but it should be a minimal amount. Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very easy. However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS version of the page? I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? Thanks ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221192 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
Sandy... How is having javascript on your website causing a site to be "un-accessible"? That makes no sense. -Original Message- From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221191 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
John! You literally took the words right out mf my mouth. I've said those exact words before and I still believe it. Honestly, except for nerds, security-paranoid hackers and the occasional non-tech person who's disabled javascript because they were told that someone could steal their credit card information with it turned on, how many people REALLY have js disabled? More likely that they would have an older browser that doesn't support new methods than no javascript. Do you still worry about web-safe colors too? :) -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:00 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and > use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an > educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but > it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you > give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221190 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I personally use Urchin web stats on all of my sites. As part of it, it has some JS that creates cookies which are available immediately to a CF page. So the visitor hits the page, the urchin code kicks off and sets a domain cookie. You can then check for the existence of it in the cookie scope. If it doesn't exist you can assume that JS is disabled. Martin Parry http://www.beetrootstreet.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 October 2005 13:39 To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript How do you handle non-JS users, technically? Let's say you have a page that requires JS. Do you immediately redirect them (using JS) to a JS-enabled page and then leave the others with ? Or, do you keep the JS and non-JS content on the same page? Thanks M!ke From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/15/2005 9:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Internally as you've said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific components so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually write 2 versions. (provided that the site isn't dependant on something like milonic menu throughout anyway) Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even funny! SQL Injection heaven. You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error messages in that thing! :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but it should be a minimal amount. Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very easy. However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS version of the page? I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? Thanks ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221188 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
How do you handle non-JS users, technically? Let's say you have a page that requires JS. Do you immediately redirect them (using JS) to a JS-enabled page and then leave the others with ? Or, do you keep the JS and non-JS content on the same page? Thanks M!ke From: Bobby Hartsfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 10/15/2005 9:17 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript Internally as you've said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific components so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually write 2 versions. (provided that the site isn't dependant on something like milonic menu throughout anyway) Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even funny! SQL Injection heaven. You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error messages in that thing! ...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but it should be a minimal amount. Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very easy. However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS version of the page? I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? Thanks ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221187 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I guess that is the problem, then. Google, apparently, doesn't care to follow the 508 or WCAG requirements in regards to their Gmail and Google Maps applications. We are a privately-owned university which would not fall under any requirements, unless we wanted to, so we are a somewhat flexible. As far as our intranet, it's not totally under our control. Although we have standardized on most university-owned computers, we still have to deal with student computers which are not under our control. However, as I said, students will be forced to use Blackboard beginning the next full school year. Since it requires JS, either the students will bitch about it or quietly enable JS. As we are rebuilding our intranet site, I can find numerous places where JS/AJAX would certainly improve the experience for the majority of users. Now, I just need to figure out the best solution for when a person disables JS. Thanks for everyone's comments, and if you have more suggestions to share, please do. M!ke From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 10/17/2005 6:33 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221186 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
That's strange - the AJAX driven DHTML JS I've built into web pages works perfectly with more than one screen reader. Is there a particular reason they made that ruling? On 10/17/05, Sandy Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a > page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered > accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is > a major consideration. > > However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox > beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the > javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221185 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I can tell you that section 508 and the WCAG both have a requirement that a page be able to work without javascript in order to be considered accessible. If you are required to build accessible web pages, then that is a major consideration. However, IBM demonstrated an accessible javascript which the new Firefox beta is supporting. Once that is widely available, I believe that the javascript disabled rule for accessibility will be deprecated. Sandra Clark -Original Message- From: John Wilker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:00 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build > and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that > as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable > JS, but it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do > you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221184 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I've never supported non-JS. Cross browser JS, yes, but building a non-JS version...? Then what? A version that works in Netscape 2? Maybe a Lynx only version? There comes a point when you can't cater to the lowest common denominator. IMO, JS is pretty darn common place. Those afraid of JS and cookies should probably stick to sneaker net and snail mail :) On 10/15/05, Dawson, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What > is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps > and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. > > I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and > use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an > educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but > it should be a minimal amount. > > Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it > will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? > Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on > their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very > easy. > > However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS > version of the page? > > I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you > give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? > > Thanks > > > ~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221174 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
Internally as youve said... I'd say, "Sorry, you need JS" To an extent, I would do it on many external sites as well. Sometimes budget doesn't give room to do two versions of specific components so the client needs to decide which is more important to them. Global usability or flare for the masses. If budget does allow it, I usually write 2 versions. (provided that the site isnt dependant on something like milonic menu throughout anyway) Of course, you are already running blackboard (I feel for you) and users must have JS for 95% of that anyway so why not an intranet? On a different note, I found so many bugs in Blackboard, it wasn't even funny! SQL Injection heaven. You could mimic the data structure and half the code simply from error messages in that thing! ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Bobby Hartsfield http://acoderslife.com -Original Message- From: Dawson, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 9:31 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but it should be a minimal amount. Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very easy. However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS version of the page? I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? Thanks ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221141 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
SOT: Thoughts on Requiring Javascript
I'm interested in what you think of requiring JS for a web site. What is the current mentality on JS? I know that to use Gmail, Google Maps and, in our case, Blackboard Learning System, you must enable JS. I would love to get more into AJAX to make my pages easier to build and use, but I'm afraid I may alienate some people. I will say, that as an educational institution, we have some people that will disable JS, but it should be a minimal amount. Let's say that I do require an extensive amount of JS on my site (it will be an intranet), then how far do I go to support non-JS users? Let's also say I create a form that lets me look up a user based on their ID number, name or email address. AJAX will make this task very easy. However, if a person disables JS, should I bother to create a non-JS version of the page? I'm just curious in how far you go to require JS and, if you do, do you give an alternative other than "Sorry, this page requires javascript"? Thanks ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:221140 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
