How many people have Javascript turned off?

[George Ter-Saakov]

Hi.

Is there any public statistic available of what percentage of Users have
JavaScript turned off.


Thanks.
George.

 

[darrel]

Is there any public statistic available of what percentage of Users have

JavaScript turned off.

Even if there were, it would be irrelevant to your particular site.

Things to consider with javascript:

- some (though not many) corporate IT dept's turn it off
- text browser have no need for it
- anyone using a screen reader has no need for it
- lots of PDAs/phones/etc. don't use it

Whenever possible, let Javascript be an 'enhancement' but not a requirement
to use a site.

-Darrel

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Whenever possible, let Javascript be an 'enhancement' but not a
requirement

to use a site.

So, you're telling us that ASP.Net is architected all wrong? It uses
JavaScript extensively, in nearly any page you create. We're talking about
web applications here, not web sites of static HTML content.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Big things are made up
of lots of little things.

 

[darrel]

So, you're telling us that ASP.Net is architected all wrong? It uses

JavaScript extensively, in nearly any page you create.

Yep. At least the front-end GUI is architected with little regard to the web
as whole. I'm finding .net to be engineered with little consideration to
things like accessibility and web standards. It's rather pathetic.

For instance, I'm working on a paging control for a repeater grid. I ended
up using some asp:linkbuttons to trigger the paging.

Unfortunately, these buttons can ONLY be used if someone has javascript.
This is unacceptable on our public web site that needs to be as ADA
compliant as we can make it.

So, I need to go in and make my own control.

Not a big deal, but the problem is that a lot of the 'easy built-in'
controls in .NET are actually quite horrific in terms of accessibility,
standards, CSS, etc.

It's a great, fast tool for whippping up internal web apps that will all be
run from IE6, but one needs to be really careful and do much more work to
make it truly a universal web tool.

-Darrel

 

[George Ter-Saakov]

You are not answering the question I asked

In any Web project you need to decide the scope of the project, Version of
the supported browsers , Targeted resolution, ....

I am ready to give up PDA, text browsers ,,, and cut them loose considering
that their user base do not exceed 0.5%.

I did find an URL where i can find that info
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/

From it you can see that there is about 5% of those that do not have
JavaScript turned on.

Also you should understand that their counter counts any hit.
1. Search engines spiders - no JavaScript.
2. Email harvester - no JavaScript.
3. PDA, textbrowsers, ....

So if you take this into account there is probably not so many users out
there who does not support JavaScript.

So my point is that there are not so many users who is not capable to see
site that using JavaScript hence ASP.NET as you outlined in your dramatic
email.

George.

 

[darrel]

You are not answering the question I asked

Well, my answer is 'does it really matter?'

General web stats don't matter. What matters is the demographic of your
particular site's user base.

I am ready to give up PDA, text browsers ,,, and cut them loose considering
that their user base do not exceed 0.5%.

For now...note that that will grow.

From it you can see that there is about 5% of those that do not have
JavaScript turned on.

Again, generic web stats like that are about as useful as political polls.
;o)

Also you should understand that their counter counts any hit.
1. Search engines spiders - no JavaScript.
2. Email harvester - no JavaScript.
3. PDA, textbrowsers, ....

Yep...which are good things to consider. Also note that any user that
doesn't have javascript that hits a javascript-dependant site, probably
isn't going to stick around to increase those hits.

It's sort of like saying 'there's no reason to make our site PDA friendly
because only .5% of the hits come from PDAs'. Well, maybe only .5% of the
hits are coming from PDAs because your site isn't PDA friendly.

Plus, let's not forget scale here. Perhaps your site gets 1000000 hits a
month. .5% of that is 5000. If your site sells widgets, is marketing willing
to loose 5000 potential sales leads because your site requires javascript to
get to the shopping cart page? I don't know...but that is one of the
questions you need to ask.

So my point is that there are not so many users who is not capable to see
site that using JavaScript hence ASP.NET as you outlined in your dramatic
email.

Again, your argument is only applicable if we talk about a specific web
site.

In my case, I'm building a web site that needs to be publicly accessible. I
can't have ANY part of the site that REQUIRES javascript to use it, namely
for accessibility reasons. So a lot of the built-in .net server controls are
of no use to me.

If we were talking about an internal intranet application where everyone is
using IE6, then they'd be great tools.

My personal opinion is that there is no reason to require javascript for
most public web sites. Javascript *can* significantly enhance the user
experience of any web site, though. It's the icing on the cake, in
otherwords. A bowl full of icing isn't terribly appetizing and is too sweet
for sickenly sweet for some, but a bit spread on a cake...yummy! And those
that don't like the extra sweet icing? Well, they can still have their cake
and eat it too.

-Darrel

 

[John Saunders]

Well, my answer is 'does it really matter?'

General web stats don't matter. What matters is the demographic of your
particular site's user base.


For now...note that that will grow.

The number of PDAs and other mobile devices will grow, but they will
increasingly support JavaScript at the same time.

Again, generic web stats like that are about as useful as political polls.
;o)


Yep...which are good things to consider. Also note that any user that
doesn't have javascript that hits a javascript-dependant site, probably
isn't going to stick around to increase those hits.

And it's possible, for a given site, that you don't want those users to
stick around to be a further PITA. If you give them a nice enough
"JavaScript required" message, they may even upgrade to a JavaScript-enabled
device.

It's sort of like saying 'there's no reason to make our site PDA friendly
because only .5% of the hits come from PDAs'. Well, maybe only .5% of the
hits are coming from PDAs because your site isn't PDA friendly.

True. But to some extent, catering to low-capability devices perpetuates
their use. Might it not be better to hasten their obsolescence?

Plus, let's not forget scale here. Perhaps your site gets 1000000 hits a
month. .5% of that is 5000. If your site sells widgets, is marketing willing
to loose 5000 potential sales leads because your site requires javascript to
get to the shopping cart page? I don't know...but that is one of the
questions you need to ask.

If my sales people are busy with the 1,000,000 - 5,000 other potential
leads, they won't notice the 5,000.

Again, your argument is only applicable if we talk about a specific web
site.

Very true.

In my case, I'm building a web site that needs to be publicly accessible. I
can't have ANY part of the site that REQUIRES javascript to use it, namely
for accessibility reasons. So a lot of the built-in .net server controls are
of no use to me.

I've never dealt with an accessible browser, so I don't know: how do they
push normal submit buttons? Whatever technique they use should surely be
usable for a LinkButton. So, what kind of users do you have who can't
somehow cause buttons to push? If there are devices out there which can push
buttons but don't support the simple JavaScript involved in PostBack, well,
maybe those users need an incentive to upgrade...

If we were talking about an internal intranet application where everyone is
using IE6, then they'd be great tools.

My personal opinion is that there is no reason to require javascript for
most public web sites. Javascript *can* significantly enhance the user
experience of any web site, though. It's the icing on the cake, in
otherwords. A bowl full of icing isn't terribly appetizing and is too sweet
for sickenly sweet for some, but a bit spread on a cake...yummy! And those
that don't like the extra sweet icing? Well, they can still have their cake
and eat it too.

You'd sure wind up with some ugly URLs trying to do everything without
JavaScript. Is it really worth the bother, except for a site which has to
deal with government regulatory standards on accessibility?

 

[darrel]

And it's possible, for a given site, that you don't want those users to

stick around to be a further PITA. I

Yes. Customers can be such a PITA. ;o)

"JavaScript required" message, they may even upgrade to a JavaScript-enabled
device.

That's a lazy developer argument. It means you can't accomodate the end
user.

Sure, maybe if all stores built more steps people in wheel chairs will
upgrade to one that can walk up stairs.

I'm not saying Javascript is bad, but It's rarely needed as the ONLY way to
interact with a site. Why bring in another layer of complexity to the user
interface layer when you don't need it? Add it for those that can use it,
but don't require it for those that can't.

Again, we're talking publicly accessible sites here, I could argue the other
way for internal or custom apps and such.

True. But to some extent, catering to low-capability devices perpetuates
their use. Might it not be better to hasten their obsolescence?

Again, this is developers pushing their wants on the end user rather than
the other way around.

I've never dealt with an accessible browser, so I don't know: how do they
push normal submit buttons?

There aren't such things as accessible browsers. It's about accessible web
sites.

Whatever technique they use should surely be
usable for a LinkButton. So, what kind of users do you have who can't
somehow cause buttons to push?

The linkbutton I created with .net require javascript to have it actually do
anything. Anyone using a screen reader probbaly has javascript turned off.
As such, they can't use that button to do anything.

If there are devices out there which can push
buttons but don't support the simple JavaScript involved in PostBack, well,
maybe those users need an incentive to upgrade...

Again, this is the lazy developer argument.

You'd sure wind up with some ugly URLs trying to do everything without
JavaScript.
What?

Is it really worth the bother, except for a site which has to
deal with government regulatory standards on accessibility?

Absolutely. I try not to be a lazy developer.

-Darrel

 

[Kevin Spencer]

The .Net platform is perfectly extensible. Rather than complaining about the
System.Web.UI.Page object model, which isn't going to change, why don't you
just create your own Page or HttpHandler class and use that?

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Big things are made up
of lots of little things.

 

[darrel]

The .Net platform is perfectly extensible. Rather than complaining about
the

System.Web.UI.Page object model, which isn't going to change, why don't you
just create your own Page or HttpHandler class and use that?

I agree.

-Darrel

 

[John Saunders]

Yes. Customers can be such a PITA. ;o)


That's a lazy developer argument. It means you can't accomodate the end
user.

Not all of them, no. Can your sites accomodate customers in a coma? If not,
why not?

Sure, maybe if all stores built more steps people in wheel chairs will
upgrade to one that can walk up stairs.

No. People in wheel chairs don't have a choice about it. I was referring to
people who were deferring a purchasing decision because your site decided to
accomodate their obsolete equipment.

....

Again, this is developers pushing their wants on the end user rather than
the other way around.

Nonsense. As soon as you start talking about the Internet, you're talking
about an effectively infinite set of users with infinite requirements. You
cannot accomodate them all. Period. You have to decide where to draw the
line. For instance, how many languages do you translate your site into? What
percentage of the languages spoken by the Internet population do your sites
speak?

There aren't such things as accessible browsers. It's about accessible web
sites.

I meant "browsers which accomodate with access issues".

The linkbutton I created with .net require javascript to have it actually do
anything. Anyone using a screen reader probbaly has javascript turned off.
As such, they can't use that button to do anything.

Yes, but since you didn't answer my question about normal submit buttons,
you don't know whether the answer could apply to LinkButtons or not.

Again, this is the lazy developer argument.

No, see above.

What?

A great deal of what JavaScript is used for in ASP.NET is to stuff values
into hidden fields before POSTing the form back to itself. If you don't use
hidden fields or cookies, or something else done via JavaScript, then you
have to limit your interaction to visible fields and to URL parameters. For
instance, instead of a LinkButton which sets __EVENTTARGET and
__EVENTARGUMENT hidden fields and then posts, you'll need to GET a URL which
includes the __EVENTTARGET and __EVENTARGUMENT values in it.

Absolutely. I try not to be a lazy developer.

You don't try too hard not to be insulting, though.

Your responses here seem to indicate either a lack of experience or a lack
of imagination. It sounds like you've never encountered a situation where
failure to accomodate a potential user would indicate anything other than
laziness. I happen to know better. There are situations where the tradeoffs
come out differently. Among other things, the amount of time you spend
solving the problems of the 5% is time you're not allocating to the other
95%. Even in public web sites.

At the very least, I hope you're not subjecting the 95% to web sites
accessible to the 5%!

 

[darrel]

Not all of them, no. Can your sites accomodate customers in a coma? If
not,

why not?

Because people in comas aren't conscious.

No. People in wheel chairs don't have a choice about it. I was referring to
people who were deferring a purchasing decision because your site decided to
accomodate their obsolete equipment.

Well, I personally don't expect everyone to buy a new computer so they can
install the latest OS just to they can run the latest web browser, just so
they can use my site.

Person using NN4? Fine with me. Here, here's my content. It may not look as
fancy, but I'm not going to deny you access to it.

Nonsense. As soon as you start talking about the Internet, you're talking
about an effectively infinite set of users with infinite requirements. You
cannot accomodate them all. Period.

Agreed. I try to accomodate as many as I can.

You have to decide where to draw the
line. For instance, how many languages do you translate your site into? What
percentage of the languages spoken by the Internet population do your sites
speak?

Right. Agreed.

I draw the line with javascript as being at 'nice, but not required'

I meant "browsers which accomodate with access issues".

Again, it's how the page is built that accomodates the user.

A great deal of what JavaScript is used for in ASP.NET is to stuff values
into hidden fields before POSTing the form back to itself. If you don't use
hidden fields or cookies, or something else done via JavaScript, then you
have to limit your interaction to visible fields and to URL parameters. For
instance, instead of a LinkButton which sets __EVENTTARGET and
__EVENTARGUMENT hidden fields and then posts, you'll need to GET a URL which
includes the __EVENTTARGET and __EVENTARGUMENT values in it.

Ah. Gotcha. Good point.

You don't try too hard not to be insulting, though.

No, then again, I'm not attempting to be insulting. I say that as a user. SO
many sites are problematic due to lazy developers. Frames? Fly out menus?
Javascript-dependant navigation? Etc...Much of the time, these types of
'tools' are implemented to make it easier for the developer, not easier for
the end-user. (Again, all in the context of publicly accessible sites).

Your responses here seem to indicate either a lack of experience or a lack
of imagination. It sounds like you've never encountered a situation where
failure to accomodate a potential user would indicate anything other than
laziness.

Well, laziness is perhaps too harsh of a word. But it did get your attention
;o)

I concede your point. You are correct, there are times when you need to draw
the line. I just typically (again, as a site user) see that line drawn
really close to the developer's 'it's what's easier' side of the argument
than the 'it accomodates more people' side of the argument.

Now, if I were arguing from the perspective of the developer, or perhaps the
project manager running the budget, then I'd probably be arguing the
opposite.

Among other things, the amount of time you spend
solving the problems of the 5% is time you're not allocating to the other
95%. Even in public web sites.
True.

At the very least, I hope you're not subjecting the 95% to web sites
accessible to the 5%!

Some times that is perfectly valid.

-Darrel

 

[John Saunders]

decided

Well, I personally don't expect everyone to buy a new computer so they can
install the latest OS just to they can run the latest web browser, just so
they can use my site.

Person using NN4? Fine with me. Here, here's my content. It may not look as
fancy, but I'm not going to deny you access to it.

Ok, how about NN 4.7/IE4 as a target? That gets you JavaScript.

Besides, I'm beginning to think we may be thinking about two different kinds
of site. When you talk about "content", are you thinking of sites that
mostly sit there and get read (or spoken or brialled)? If so, you probably
don't have a lot more to deal with than links (and I note you still haven't
answered my question about how text browsers and such handle links or
buttons).

Agreed. I try to accomodate as many as I can.

So do I. I just don't spend an inappropriate amount of effort redefining
what "can" means. I "can" get a about five times more done for the 95% than
I could doing things for the 5%. So, where's my effort best spent? That
varies from situation to situation, and it's not "lazy" if the tradeoff
happens to lie on the side of politely rejecting the 5%.

....

No, then again, I'm not attempting to be insulting. I say that as a user. SO
many sites are problematic due to lazy developers. Frames? Fly out menus?
Javascript-dependant navigation? Etc...Much of the time, these types of
'tools' are implemented to make it easier for the developer, not easier for
the end-user. (Again, all in the context of publicly accessible sites).

How do you know why these tools were used? They may have been used to
maximize the profit from the web site, not just to save time for some
developer. Most developers don't get to choose which tools are used to build
their sites, or how those tools can be used. Those fly out menus may well
have been dictated by corporate communications standards, or even by
competition.