percentage of JS-blind browsers

[RobM]

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

Hi there.

Well so far I havent needed to. The links and markup work fine and my new
phone!
<goes off and plays with new toy/>

So you'd have a whole new web application on a different URL for people on
mobile phones? Publish a whole new URL? That would be more work (and publicy
impractical) with maintenance, advertising (informing different URL), than
writing a site that works when javascript is not appropriate or available.
Yes aa do your fancy menus and good dynamics thats fine, but do work it so
it still works when not there. I have a web application used quite
extensively and I've heard now some users are out on the road and have tried
it with their phone and its OK <phew>wipes brow</phew>

Beam on
RobM

 

[Andrew Urquhart]

Are you sure I know what you are talking about?

Eh? No, I'm not sure that you know what I'm talking about. Does that
answer your question?

As rf rightly stated, servers do not detect if a user agent supports
JS. They log the visitor irrespective if JS support

Let me qualify what I said a little more in case the implication wasn't
obvious:

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

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.

[snip utter crap]

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

*plonk*

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven Neal:

Replacement. Alternative. Not description.

Exactly. You knew I knew what I meant. <g>

 

[aa]

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).

Less then 1% - do you hear this, rffy? Or you opted to pretend that this
data is not possible to obtain?
And those less then 1% are made of Beauregard T. Shagnasty who disables JS
because he says he prefers static crap, and search engines who do not need
to read JS.

 

[Andy Dingley]

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

No you don't - not if you do it right in the first place.

 

[Kris]

Didn't they tell you on those HTML courses that checking your pages on every
browser you customer might use is the must?

That would be quite undoable, wouldn't it? Or should we assume that you
think you can count browsers on one hand?

 

[Kris]

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

Replacement. Alternative. Not description.[/QUOTE]

If the function of the image is to describe something visually, then
Beauregard is right.

 

[Kris]

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[/QUOTE]

No you don't. Who spoonfed that to you?

 

[Wÿrm]

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

And you still do not realize that "support" of JavaScript do not make it
automatically available on browsers for websites to abuse.

Software Firewalls can block Scripts, JavaScript included. PopUP blockers
can block JavaScript. Proxys can do it. Browser settings can do it etc...

 

[Mark Parnell]

In alt.html Andy Dingley said:


blocked by firewalls and ad filters as a webbug

And not loaded for anyone without images.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Before responding again, I highly recommend you read
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

Those Googlebots you all talk about are designed for those web developers
who do not understand or do not care about SEs.

So those who do understand and care about them are supposed to get their
pages indexed how, exactly?

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.

Of course. Nothing can really *guarantee* a high ranking. But your pages
aren't going to rank highly if they're not indexed in the first place.

Actually it is the other way round.

Really? Where is your data to back this up?

You do not want SE to index you whole site.

I certainly do. Search engines drive visitors. A page wouldn't be on the
site if I didn't want visitors to look at it. Ergo, I want search
engines to index every page.

You want SE to index certain pages only, which you carefully prepare and
sumbit to SE.

Ah, search engine spamming. See the URL above.

Allowing SE to index all you site is like diluting beer with water as it
reduces relevancy.

Rubbish. Again, where is your proof?

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.

It bloats the page, meaning that the search engine robot has to go
further down the page to find anything to index, and reduces keyword
saturation. Truly an advantage.

But page contents - this is what you want to index by SE.
Duh.

So JS menu helps
SE to ignore irrelevant info and increase the concentration of meaningful
data.

See above.

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.

And what exactly is that supposed to prove? That lots of sites use JS
menus? So what?

 

[Neal]

Replacement. Alternative. Not description.

If the function of the image is to describe something visually, then
Beauregard is right.
[/QUOTE]


If, then the alternate content will likely describe the image. But it's
always better to think in terms of replacement content, not description,
as a general rule.

 

[Joel Shepherd]

And those less then 1% are made of Beauregard T. Shagnasty who disables JS
because he says he prefers static crap, and search engines who do not need
to read JS.

Search engines certainly _do_ need to be able to "read JS" if your site
navigation depends on it. Otherwise, the site is unlikely to be
well-spidered.

It's unfortunate, perhaps, that search engines _don't_ grok JS. That's
an expensive 1% of visitors to ignore.

 

[aa]

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

Not too bad for a newbie.

I do check my pages in many browsers.

If you "don't care what browser the visitors to my sites use", then you
might be checking your pages in browsers which are not used by your visitors
and missing browsers which they do use.
Obviously the statement "I don't care what browser the visitors to my sites
use" came to you in a state of a mental apparition. Therefore instead of
inventing another bullshit to support the previous one, will not it be
easier to admit that the first one was wrong?

What you aren't understanding,
apparently, is you should learn how to *write* those pages to work in
all browsers.

Thanks for teaching me a good lesson. So your pont is that one does not need
to check his code in the browsers. All one needs is "how to *write* those
pages to work in all browsers. Perhaps you can also drive your car by
odometer without looking at the road? When it is 5 miles, I turn to the
lift, in 1.5 miles to the right etc.




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.

Yes, I know this sort of pages. They usually are as exciting as a vegetarian
lunch.

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

One can tell this by your remarks. It is became popular instead of learning,
to teach others.

 

[aa]

This post and the three previous ones are very exciting. And equally
important conclusion

 

[aa]

No you don't - not if you do it right in the first place.

I ain't a got and might be wrong. And always keen to learn.
Please will you refer me to an example of a single variant webpage which
lokks good in both destop display and on a mobile phone.

 

[aa]

"aa" <[email protected]> wrote:

Search engines certainly _do_ need to be able to "read JS" if your site
navigation depends on it. Otherwise, the site is unlikely to be
well-spidered.

As I explained above well-spidering has little to do with hight rating. If
you seriously hope that spiders will do your job, you are in for a nasty
surprise.
Therefore use JS as you feel fit, but at the same time learn how to get love
from SE

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven aa:

Not too bad for a newbie.

Since you are immune to good advice, I will leave you to stew in your
own juices.

 

[aa]

Before responding again, I highly recommend you read
http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

What for? To get my whole site indexed? I do not need it. I need high
ranking. Geting indexed and getting high rank are not synonims.

So those who do understand and care about them are supposed to get their

pages indexed how, exactly?

This is HTML forum, not SE one. And I do not run courses for those who is
too knowledgable to learn.

Of course. Nothing can really *guarantee* a high ranking. But your pages
aren't going to rank highly if they're not indexed in the first place.

Jesus Christ! Who wants hight ranking for EVERY page on a website ?
Unless some very special case, of, say 100 pages on a site, one usually
needs just several pages to get rank. Often just one page is enough.

Ergo, I want search engines to index every page.

Good luck

Ah, search engine spamming. See the URL above.

So nothing other than search engine spamming springs to your mind when you
read about preparing a page for a SE?
It looks like you are like Andrew Urquhart who instead of taking courses
opted to teach others.

It bloats the page, meaning that the search engine robot has to go
further down the page to find anything to index, and reduces keyword
saturation. Truly an advantage.

It does not bloat for a SE, as SE just skips over JS without pasing it. A
pure HTML menu - a SE will have to parse it and consider as a ballast.

Rubbish. Again, where is your proof?
Really? Where is your data to back this up?

And what exactly is that supposed to prove? That lots of sites use JS
menus? So what?

This is really great! You keep asking about proof and when I give you a real
practical proff, rather then theories, you mumble "So what?".
It is not possible to make a blind to see. Sorry, I ran out of arguments

 

[aa]

[snip utter crap]

http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html

For the second time you refer me to this URL as if it is a Bible and
whatever is written there should be obeyed without thinking.

Are you aware that outside this NG there is a wide spread opinion that
computer programmer is not a trade, but a diagnosys?
And many people here seem to bend over backwards to prove this.

I, however always give people a benefit of doubt and hope that I deal with
childish naivity which will disappear with the age, rather then with mature
stupidity, which is for life.

OK, let's talk layman terms.
As we have just established, SE on the whole and Google in particular are
interested to index all your site.
Here your and Google's interests coinside and you enjoy reading the Google
manual and even quote it to your likes.
But this is where your and Google's interests part.
Your interest is to get the top rating.
Is Google interested to give you the top rating?
Of course not. They do not have that many top ranks to award everyone who
memorises their manual.
If you blindly follow Google's manual, your site will be indexed indeed down
to the most insignificant page and then will be placed in a pile of hundreds
of similar sites. Google is happy. Google's customers are happy. Who is
unhappy? Your employer. But who cares!

*plonk*

This seems to be very popular word in here for people use it excessively and
obviously enjoy its sound.
At first I thought that this is how people clear their throats - is this the
case?