[TriLUG] Javascript.. why?

[Josh Vickery]

I think Cristóbal hits the concept spot on, but I would also point out
that the newest buzz phrase to replace "graceful degradation" is
"progressive enhancement" (see:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/understandingprogressiveenhancement/).

Allen, handling "edge cases" is often what separates moderately good
software from great software. It wasn't too long ago that any web
client other than IE 5.x on Windows was an "edge case."

And to Maxwell, my opinion as a web (and other) developer is that
Javascript has become more common due to the advancement in browser
implementations and the many great open source Javascript frameworks
(as Time listed) that make handling "edge" cases (also known as
not-IE) a lot easier to deal with by providing APIs that are (mostly)
uniformly implemented across most browsers.

That said, I browse with NoScript as on my main browser (Firefox 3 on
Ubuntu). I like seeing what sites fail to handle "edge cases" like my
setup, and even more so those that handle missing or partially enabled
Javascript especially well.

Josh

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Allen Freeman <knieveltech at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG FAQ  : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>