[TriLUG] Javascript.. why?

[Allen Freeman]

What you're describing is an edge case. Most mobile devices and all personal computers have the ability to parse javascript more or less as intended. This represents the overwhelming majority of web traffic encountered on your average website. Ergo javascript-based UI and other functionality has become ubiquitous. 

--- On Mon, 12/15/08, Cristóbal Palmer <cmp at cmpalmer.org> wrote:
From: Cristóbal Palmer <cmp at cmpalmer.org>
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] Javascript.. why?
To: "Triangle Linux Users Group General Discussion" <trilug at trilug.org>
Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 9:37 PM

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Tim Jowers <timjowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Disabling JavaScript is a relic.

I beg to differ. There are devices and software for the disabled that
do not handle javascript well or at all, and there are clearly valid
reasons to block javascript from untrusted sources. Beyond that, basic
pages with no javascript often load far faster, since the javascript
is in part used to pull in media content from multiple providers. Life
with noscript is generally pretty good. And I find that sites that
give me nothing if I don't enable javascript are very rarely worth my
time.

It's all well and good to make your site more interactive and dynamic
with javascript and flash, but there are many of us who cannot afford
to lock out particular populations that don't or can't use them.

> Silverlight/ActiveX is just too darn Microsoft proprietary so I doubt
> it will ride for long. So, your question as it relates to TriJUG is

TriJUG is a *Java* users group. You meant this group -- TriLUG -- right?

> Cost? My belief is the net cost with Flash/Flex is probably less.
> Today, the potential for an incredible user interface is far more
> tractable in Flash. Graphical designers know how to use Adobe tools.
> This is what they train on in college. The standard level of UI is
> higher in flash apps.

That's a generalization that can't be proven. When you say standard
level, you presumably mean something objectively testable, but which
two apps (one javascript, one flash) do you test, and how do you
demonstrate that your test is representative of the current web
environment? Furthermore, I'll give evidence that flash is often
worse: flash apps often overload older systems and become very
sluggish. Much of what users perceive to be usability is actually just
responsiveness, so a bogged-down interface scores badly. Another
problem: how many flash-based sites do you know that allow for
bookmarking a sub-section of the site?

> call center project I did for a major auto company. The retarded
> consulting company SW "Architects" did everything as a form POST
based
> website.

While their design decision may be laughable, please don't use the
term "retarded" to describe the people involved. I'm guilty of
using
that or related terms pejoratively in conversation, but it's something
we should avoid.

You make a great case for using javascript under certain
circumstances, but I think you need to remember that some people need
their sites to "decay gracefully" if javascript or other features are
not enabled.

Cheers,
-- 
Cristóbal M. Palmer
"Small acts of humanity amid the chaos of inhumanity provide hope. But
small acts are insufficient."
    -- Paul Rusesabagina
-- 
TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions