Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
This to me is a new way of thinking, as I Generally use noscript, The sites I work on are heavily js and jquery, and none of it is embedded all linked. . Can you tell me where I might find hands on tutorial? Thanks Nancy On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Thierry Koblentz thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote: My need to utilize noscript tags or something similar stems from the exact problem mentioned here - styles won't kick in fast enough when adding .js to the body or some other method. For example, in my js degraded version, I Actually, I mentioned using the *HTML* element rather than BODY to do this. That way you don't run into the issue you describe. -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org __ 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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
This to me is a new way of thinking, as I Generally use noscript, The sites I work on are heavily js and jquery, and none of it is embedded all linked. . Can you tell me where I might find hands on tutorial? Hi Nancy, If you look at the head section of this page you should see how the whole thing works: http://www.ez-css.org/faq -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org __ 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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
Thanks all for your opinions.
My need to utilize noscript tags or something similar stems from the exact
problem mentioned here - styles won't kick in fast enough when adding .js
to the body or some other method. For example, in my js degraded version, I
need to have product details displayed for every product, whereas when js is
enabled, they should be hidden and triggered to display by a click. Using
the add .js method would cause a flash of the product details to occur
before the DOM is ready, which is the only time it would be safe to append
class .js to the body (or wrapper, or whatever). This is why i had to dream
up my unholy method in the first place.
Given that, any other suggestions?
Interesting note about js blocking - I guess we can't code for all
situations, though, if our designers haven't an idea about these kinds of
things (which is unfortunately my situation).
Jess Jacobs
aki...@gmail.com
http://www.akisma.com
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Thierry Koblentz
thierry.koble...@gmail.com wrote:
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-
boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:26 AM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
On 12 February 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs simulacran.h...@gmail.com
wrote:
A thought occurred to me recently:
noscript
style
.nojs #content-packs { display: block; }
/style
/noscript
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.)
In HTML, a noscript element may appear only in the body and may
not contain style elements,
2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior?
body
script type=text/javascript
document.body.className += js;
/script
The problem with using body (vs. html) is that the styling may not kick
in soon enough (depending on browsers).
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org
__
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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
My need to utilize noscript tags or something similar stems from the exact problem mentioned here - styles won't kick in fast enough when adding .js to the body or some other method. For example, in my js degraded version, I Actually, I mentioned using the *HTML* element rather than BODY to do this. That way you don't run into the issue you describe. -- Regards, Thierry www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org __ 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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
On 12 February 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs simulacran.h...@gmail.com wrote:
A thought occurred to me recently:
noscript
style
.nojs #content-packs { display: block; }
/style
/noscript
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.)
In HTML, a noscript element may appear only in the body and may
not contain style elements,
2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior?
body
script type=text/javascript
document.body.className += js;
/script
--
David Dorward http://dorward.me.ukhttp://blog.dorward.me.uk
__
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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-
boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of David Dorward
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 3:26 AM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
On 12 February 2010 21:01, Jess Jacobs simulacran.h...@gmail.com
wrote:
A thought occurred to me recently:
noscript
style
.nojs #content-packs { display: block; }
/style
/noscript
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.)
In HTML, a noscript element may appear only in the body and may
not contain style elements,
2. Can someone suggest an approach they might think is superior?
body
script type=text/javascript
document.body.className += js;
/script
The problem with using body (vs. html) is that the styling may not kick
in soon enough (depending on browsers).
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org
__
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/
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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
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/
Re: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
From: css-d-boun...@lists.css-discuss.org [mailto:css-d-
boun...@lists.css-discuss.org] On Behalf Of Jess Jacobs
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 1:02 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] Noscript tags and degradation
Hey everyone,
I'd like to start a discussion around js-degradation options, and I'm
wondering what people's approaches are. I've tried several over the
years,
and it's constantly evolving.
A thought occurred to me recently:
noscript
style
.nojs #content-packs { display: block; }
/style
/noscript
could be placed within the document's head (or body, depending on the
need)
to provide some extra help to the nojs version. (nojs class is
typically
placed on the body, in this case.)
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?
The issue at hand is that a page is hiding/showing content divs based
on
click events, which clearly can't happen if the user's js is disabled.
Business logic states that all content must be made visible on the page
for
a non-js user experience, and there can be no flash of the non-js
arrangement while the js-enabled version is loading. That's a mouthful.
fwiw, I do not use noscript (I consider this bad practice). I use *JS* to
plug an ID on HTML and use that ID to style elements that need to be styled
only when JS is available.
For example:
#JS .myCoolBox {display:none;}
--
Regards,
Thierry
www.tjkdesign.com | www.ez-css.org
__
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/
