[TriLUG] Javascript.. why?

[Glenn Hennessee]

Cristóbal is correct that sites need to "decay gracefully" to a functioning state with javascript disabled. From an accessibility standpoint javascript can create major problems with sites. For a user who can't use a mouse and and a site that uses a javascript menu system that can't be navigated with just a keyboard that site has locked that user out of the the site. Far too many javascript menu systems aren't accessible under 508(C) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Web 2.0 applications use AJAX under hood and if not written properly will leave the visually impaired unable to the app. All public universities/colleges in NC are subject to state law that says that their publicly available material must be handicapped accessible. Target settled a class action lawsuit in September of this year for $6,000,000 over their web site not being accessible. In addition to being the right thing to do, it's also relatively easy in most situations to make a site accessible.

glenn

Allen Freeman 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,
>   

-- 
Glenn Hennessee
Department of Chemistry
NC State University
Raleigh, NC 27606
Voice: (919) 515-2947 FAX: (919) 515-8909
Email: Glenn_Hennessee at ncsu.edu