Oh sure, that's cool. Myself, I couldn't live without Javascript, so I require it for all pages I create
Oh sure, that's cool. Myself, I couldn't live without Javascript, so I require it for all pages I create
Several corporate standards require disabling JavaScript on all browsers. This practice may get less common with Ajax being so popular, but I don't see it going away.
Also, many mobile devices have no or very limited JS support.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
That's pretty much another thing that I'm against. The web and webpages weren't designed for mobile devices, so why must every darn little thing have a web browser nowadays?
And I don't really consider a web browser a web browser without JS support. But shrug, I disgress... it's not like I can change it.
I have it off most of the time because all those kiddy clocks that follow the mouse, or some stupid countdown (or pop-up windows). 99% of sites should be able to function without JS (unless it's for a calculator or something). Most of the time JS hinders the user more than it helps. Why would you need a clock that follows the mouse if most people have one in the task-bar?
> The web and webpages weren't designed for mobile devices
Nor was it originally designed for civilians, now look at today -- how many civilians do you think use the web? Technology changes on a daily basis, adapt or get left behind.
Because it's useful.Originally Posted by Elysia
You'd be surprised to know all the things the web wasn't designed for. But if the principle holds true, then we shouldn't have any JavaScript, any styling options, or any proper way to maintain a session - so, effectively, no web applications. Sounds good?
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Meh, I don't see why that's so bad. It may not be necessary, but it's not dangerous either.
Popup windows are annoying, yes, but I tend to use a popup blocker than blocks all popups. Sometimes I don't enable it and have FF do its own popup blocking instead.
Yes, some tend to find it useful. I don't. But if other people find it well, then who am I to complain?
The main problem I have is that webpages were designed for resolution 1024x768+, and that's far too high for mobile devices.
Last edited by Elysia; 11-27-2007 at 04:51 PM.
I don't completely agree with you. A lot of big sites use AJAX (As made popular by Google) and I love it. It's very convenient. It would be cool if you could turn off certain JS functions, like ones that mess with the mouse, or open pop up windows.
You can and it is really easy: Don't visit those sites.
The biggest abuse of javascript (IMO) are the sites that open links up in new windows by using javascript:foo() as the href. If you are going to do it do it right and have a valid href and add something like an onclick event to the tag.
It's fairly easy to implement a style based on the device type. You have to design another UI but it's always going to be much simpler than the desktop version. Plus, if you have a Windows Mobile device*, then it's most irritating when pages are designed solely for desktop resolution as they can be difficult to navigate and although MiniMo (Mozilla's mobile browser) has Javascript capabilities, I've found it's more of a hindrance. Mobile pages have to be functional, not fussy for ease of use and small in size for quick downloading over Edge/GPRS.The main problem I have is that webpages were designed for resolution 1024x768+, and that's far too high for mobile devices.
[Edit]I'm mentioning Windows Mobile because that's the only one I have experience with. I know virtually nothing about Symbian et cetera so if I should have put 'mobile device' rather than Windows Mobile if their rendering behavious is similar then I apologise... but I'm not going to change it[/Edit]
Last edited by Pendragon; 11-28-2007 at 02:07 AM.
Kinda depends on what you want to do. Do you want some kind of fading effect or dynamically build an url or select an url depending on what the user has done on the page (like a quiz, calc the score and redirect depending on the score).
No. You just don't build URLs dynamically without a server submission alternative.
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
You may or may not. Sometimes the server doesn't even have PHP/Perl/etc, or you just don't know the language well enough and for something as simple as this, javascript is fine.
For more complex things, I agree server-side language is the best choice.
It doesn't change my point. The proper action in that case would be to have the javascript dynamically change the href.
When I surf I hardly ever open links directly anymore. 99% of the time I middle click it so it'll open in a background tab that I'll get to when I finish the page I'm on. With href="javascript:foo()" it doesn't work.
It doesn't always work, though. Especially not if you want effects like fading something out. And simply making one function call is easier to maintain that a dozens so. Not to mention you don't need to bother with all those events to be set up properly. Javascript isn't great, but it's acceptable.
The effects will have to go in the non-JS version, of course. That's what's known as progressive enhancement (or graceful degradation, depending on the side you're coming from).
All the buzzt!
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
