percentage of JS-blind browsers

[aa]

There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.

I wander if anyone checked that statistics.

About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
if I am not mistaken.

The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)

Therefore the spread of JS-blind browsers seems to be overstated at least as
far as that wab-site target audience is concerned.

Does any body have statistics on uswer agents of his/her own?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven aa:

The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search
engines which do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone
loads kewords into JS string literals, which is insane and should
not be taken into account)

You are missing the fact that while a browser may /support/
JavaScript, the user has disabled it. I usually do have it disabled,
because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

JavaScript Statistics

There are no absolute trends about the use of JavaScript. Some users
have scripting turned off. Some browsers don't support scripting:
<table follows>

 

[RobM]

About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
if I am not mistaken.

Hello aa.

Of course... we see that too in our J2EE webapps.... but doesnt mean they
have it (javascript) switched on. There's a usability issue and a security
issue here, and also a user preference issue. Some companies with LAN (govt)
have it switched off, some users may also have (esp to stop popups and
dynamic stuff, although layer browsers (not IE AFAIK) can now stop the
popups. I think one of the base lines here is that you cant guarantee what
the user has or what features switched on or available. It may even by a
mobile phone (which is becoming more prevalent) where all that dynamic JS
stuff may not be appropriate.JS nice to give extras and pretty up the site,
but dont rely on it if not available on the UA.

Cheers
Rob
Melbourne

 

[RobM]

dynamic stuff, although layer browsers (not IE AFAIK) can now stop the

too early in the morning! Read as "...although later browsers ..."

 

[Andrew Urquhart]

There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.

Javascript navigation is usually not *usable* regardless of the status
of javascript support.

I wander if anyone checked that statistics.

About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
if I am not mistaken.

You reap what you sow; if a site is unusable/inaccessible to some users,
don't expect to see those users in your stats.

Also: http://www.gawds.org/show.php?contentid=107

The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)

If javascript has been used to provide critical functionality such as
navigation and content then search engines would need to support
javascript to index the site properly (e.g. the http://www.sears.com/
site I noticed today). In some ways, Google is your most important blind
user - you can't dismiss it from your argument as easily as you have.

 

[aa]

You are missing the fact that while a browser may /support/
JavaScript,

I am not missing. I'm just trying not to confuse browser capabilities with
user preferences.
If a user is advanced enough to switch off scripts, then he knows what he is
doing.
Like some people opt to disable graphics (I did it myself 5 years ago to
speed up download but stopped doing so since 56K modems became standard),
and even worse, disable image placeholders so that the whole layout goes
babana - it does not mean that webdesigners had to replace a picture with
the proverbial 1000 words. It is enough to put some indication into ALT so
that a visitor can decide if to enable pictures. Same appllies to scripts

JavaScript, the user has disabled it. I usually do have it disabled,

because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.

The ultimate solution to this problem would be to have your display disabled
because crap can even better be thrown without JS, just with <h1> tag alone.
BTW, do you know how to disable downloading FLASH in IE6 other then
uninstalling it?

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Global statistics not necessarily applies to local conditions and I better
trust what I see myself. But in this instance the global stats shows similar
to what I saw on my website - about 97% are JS supporting browsers.

BTW the stat indeed depends very much on the website's audience. The stat I
mentioned was for a site dealing with ladies shoes and there IE was about
85% and very little Mozilla. The other site on building materials shown
about 70% IE and considerable number of Mozilla.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven aa:

I am not missing. I'm just trying not to confuse browser
capabilities with user preferences. If a user is advanced enough to
switch off scripts, then he knows what he is doing.

Yes, because the user is smart enough to know that JavaScript can be
misused.

Like some people opt to disable graphics (I did it myself 5 years
ago to speed up download but stopped doing so since 56K modems
became standard), and even worse, disable image placeholders so
that the whole layout goes babana - it does not mean that
webdesigners had to replace a picture with the proverbial 1000
words. It is enough to put some indication into ALT so that a
visitor can decide if to enable pictures. Same appllies to scripts

Your ALT text should not be a thousand words. You're comparing apples
and oranges.

because of all the crap many authors try to throw at me.

The ultimate solution to this problem would be to have your display
disabled because crap can even better be thrown without JS, just
with <h1> tag alone.

No, you're wrong. An <h1> contains no script and therefore can't
execute anything on my computer. It may look ugly, but is not dynamic.
Again, apples and oranges.

BTW, do you know how to disable downloading FLASH in IE6 other then
uninstalling it?

Couldn't tell ya; it's been so long since I've used it.

Global statistics not necessarily applies to local conditions and I
better trust what I see myself. But in this instance the global
stats shows similar to what I saw on my website - about 97% are JS
supporting browsers.

Sure. Even NS4 supports JavaScript. Now go and write something to
track whether it is *enabled* in all these browsers.

BTW the stat indeed depends very much on the website's audience.
The stat I mentioned was for a site dealing with ladies shoes and
there IE was about 85% and very little Mozilla. The other site on
building materials shown about 70% IE and considerable number of
Mozilla.

Which browsers your visitors use is not germane to this topic. I don't
care what browser the visitors to my sites use. JavaScript is not
required for anything.

 

[Andy Dingley]

There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.

100% of Googlebots don't do JS.

Don't worry about JS. It's not necessary to use a site.

If it _is_ necessary (i.e. for navigation) then you're a muppet and
your site gets the users it deserves - none through Google, that's for
starters. There is _no_ reason why JS-alone navigation can't be
emulated through non-JS methods, so anyone who does choose to do this
can only be assumed to have done it deliberately, despite the
consequences.

After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera

user_agent hasn't been reliable since IE started calling itself
Mozilla, and _really_ hasn't been reliable since better browsers
starting spoofing as IE to fool those idiot sites with IE-detectors
( www.powergen.co.uk I mean you !)

all able of supporting Javascript

Don't forget those intermediate levels; those with it turned off
(probably small) and those running pop-up blockers that will partially
disable it (my guess is that these are probably a larger group these
days).

 

[jake]

There were several strong statements here made about JavaScript usability in
menus based on premise that 7 -15 % of browsers (or users, according to
someone's interpretation) do not support javascript.

I wander if anyone checked that statistics.

About three years ago, in one of websites (ASP-based) I added a server side
code which recordered user agent of every visitor.
After two months the total number of visits were about 3000 of which about
98% were either IE, or Netscape or Opera all able of supporting Javascript
if I am not mistaken.

The remaining 2% turned out to me mainly robots used by search engines which
do not need to support JavaScript (unless someone loads kewords into JS
string literals, which is insane and should not be taken into account)

Therefore the spread of JS-blind browsers seems to be overstated at least as
far as that wab-site target audience is concerned.

Does any body have statistics on uswer agents of his/her own?

Based on the example of a low-usage site that I occasionally contribute
the odd page to, the stats-counter program indicates that less than 1%
of (random) visitors are non-javascript capable (JS switched off or
otherwise).

Using Javascript is fine; just remember to include an alternative for
those users who aren't JS-capable (if it's an important function).


regards.

 

[rf]

Based on the example of a low-usage site that I occasionally contribute
the odd page to, the stats-counter program indicates that less than 1%
of (random) visitors are non-javascript capable (JS switched off or
otherwise).

Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
counting?

 

[Andy Dingley]

Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
counting?

If you care about this, the usually technique is to dynamically modify
the page so that it loads a 1x1 blank GIF that wasn't mentioned in the
statc HTML. The URL to this GIF has an identifier for the page
embedded in it (which also bursts any caching).

Parse up the server logs, match the page loads to the image loads, and
away you go.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Andy Dingley said:

1x1 blank GIF

blocked by firewalls and ad filters as a webbug

 

[jake]

Please tell us how that site determines that a particular viewer is or is
not using Javascript. What exactly is their "stats-counter program"
counting?

You'll need to ask these nice folks:

http://www.statcounter.com/

regards

 

[Andy Dingley]

blocked by firewalls and ad filters as a webbug

Well use one of the "live" images then - just change the URL you use
to retrieve it.

It was 2001 when I really cared about this stuff - not many people
were blocking ads and webbugs then, you just nuked doubleclick in the
DNS.

 

[aa]

user_agent hasn't been reliable since IE started calling itself
Mozilla, and _really_ hasn't been reliable since better browsers
starting spoofing as IE to fool those idiot sites with IE-detectors
( www.powergen.co.uk I mean you !)

You better mean yourself if you still cannot see that for the purpose of
this dicussion distinguishing between IE and Mozilla does not matter as
both support JS

 

[aa]

It may even by a
mobile phone (which is becoming more prevalent) where all that dynamic JS
stuff may not be appropriate.

This argument is hardly valid as for mobiles you have to make a special
version of your site anyway

 

[aa]

Your ALT text should not be a thousand words. You're comparing apples
and oranges.

You should re-read my comments before answering like that. Besides I see
nothing wrong anout comparing apples and oranges they have bot common things
as well as different ones. Same applies to my analogy agains which you
onviously have no other valid argument.

No, you're wrong. An <h1> contains no script and therefore can't
execute anything on my computer. It may look ugly, but is not dynamic.

Bloody hell! What you people have done to your sense of humour? Besides how
static crap is better then the dynamic one? For me crap is crap irrespective
if its dynamism.

Again, apples and oranges.

No, now it is static crap vs dynamic crap

Sure. Even NS4 supports JavaScript. Now go and write something to
track whether it is *enabled* in all these browsers.

I stopped caring about NS4 users time ago. Because NS stopped caring about
them even earlier.

Which browsers your visitors use is not germane to this topic.

Still it is more germane than your apples and oranges

I don't care what browser the visitors to my sites use.

This is bemusing to hear from a person who obviously consider hemself an
authoruty in web-design.
Didn't they tell you on those HTML courses that checking your pages on every
browser you customer might use is the must?

 

[aa]

You reap what you sow; if a site is unusable/inaccessible to some users,
don't expect to see those users in your stats.

Are you sure I know what you are talking about? As rf rightly stated,
servers do not detect if a user agent supports JS. They log the visitor
irrespective if JS support

If javascript has been used to provide critical functionality such as
navigation and content then search engines would need to support
javascript to index the site properly (e.g. the http://www.sears.com/
site I noticed today). In some ways, Google is your most important blind
user - you can't dismiss it from your argument as easily as you have.

This argument has been reiterated many times in this NG and so far I ignored
it.
People who use it heard something about SEs but seem to have little
practical experience which does not prevent them from confidently misleading
the others.

Those Googlebots you all talk about are designed for those web developers
who do not understand or do not care about SEs. Yes, Google's objective it
to index as many pages as possible and JS menu may prevent it. However
allowing Google to index ALL you site following non-JS menu will not
garantee high rating. Actually it is the other way round.

The very expression "SE to index you site" shows lack of undestanding how it
works. You do not want SE to index you whole site.
You want SE to index certain pages only, which you carefully prepare and
sumbit to SE.
Allowing SE to index all you site is like diluting beer with water as it
reduces relevancy.
If you take a particular page, then the presence of a JS menu is only an
advantage because menu contains a lot of data irrelevant to the page
contents.
But page contents - this is what you want to index by SE. So JS menu helps
SE to ignore irrelevant info and increase the concentration of meaningful
data.
If I failed to convince you, why don't you go to Google, make a search and
see how many pages with JS menu and with non-JS menu will show up there.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven aa:

You should re-read my comments before answering like that. Besides
I see nothing wrong anout comparing apples and oranges they have
bot common things as well as different ones. Same applies to my
analogy agains which you onviously have no other valid argument.

<sigh> I've read your statement several times now, and cannot figure
out what you are trying to say.

ALT text is supposed to be a short, concise description of what the
image is about.

Bloody hell! What you people have done to your sense of humour?

My sense of humour is just fine. In fact, can you hear me guffawing
just now?

Besides how static crap is better then the dynamic one? For me crap
is crap irrespective if its dynamism.

You are intentionally skirting the point. The discussion is about why
people disable JavaScript. It's because too many authors (?) misuse

Oh. See? I already said that. Please consult a resource to learn what
that old phrase means.

No, now it is static crap vs dynamic crap

Yeah. That is exactly what I said. Do you now agree?

I stopped caring about NS4 users time ago. Because NS stopped
caring about them even earlier.

I don't support NS4 specifics either.

Still it is more germane than your apples and oranges

Well, if we drop the topic of discussion ...

This is bemusing to hear from a person who obviously consider
hemself an authoruty in web-design. Didn't they tell you on those
HTML courses that checking your pages on every browser you customer
might use is the must?

I do check my pages in many browsers. What you aren't understanding,
apparently, is you should learn how to *write* those pages to work in
all browsers. First. It is far easier to write a page that works in
all browsers, than to patch and hack up pages because you designed it
for *one* browser in the beginning.

Obviously, you are having some difficulty following along here, so
maybe we should just drop it?

Oh, I've never taken an HTML course. I have, however, assisted in the
/teaching/ of one.

 

[Neal]

ALT text is supposed to be a short, concise description of what the
image is about.

<img "sunset.jpg" alt="Sunset at Malibu" height="nnn" width="nnn">

Replacement. Alternative. Not description.