percentage of JS-blind browsers

[Wÿrm]

Thanks, Wÿrm for your help. You very well answered to my opponents who
advise against JS on the grounds that it is not supported by SEs. So
actually I am in for a PLEASENT surprise, am I not?

afaik. ONLY new GoogleBot can read JS, and only some of it. I guess they
been tweaking it because so many try use JS to do OutBoundLinking to avoid
google PR flow.

You DO realize that if your whole site navigation menus rely purely on JS to
work (you change page with JS that is), google PR is not "flowing" freely
even inside your site (yet)?

More you get your pages indexed in google, more likely you are getting IBL
(more IBL = more PR) from other sites to those pages, assuming pages are
valuable.

So, more pages indexed, more better you can boost any page in your site by
using certain internal linking structure because this way you can steer some
incoming google PR to pages you think you need it more.

 

[rf]

Sam Hughes wrote

You are wrong.

It's an interesting conjecture though

 

[brucie]

In alt.html rf said:

It's an interesting conjecture though

shit! you're not another little voice of mine are you? i cant keep up
with you all.

 

[Starshine Moonbeam]

Kris, you cannot just cut in the middle of the discussion ignoring the
context which spans across several previous messages.

As you probably noticed that my ideoligy is to ignore DIY browsers or
unorthodox visitors who like to live in the last sentury and switch off
acheivements of civilisation in thier browsers. I therefore do check just in
three browsers. Wrong. In two. I ignore Netscape because to make something
work in Netscape means bending a W3C complient code.

My opponents are trying to prove that every customer is of great importance
and one should learn to write HTML which is compatible with every browser.
But at the same time they make risky statement that they do not care which
user agent are used. Obvious flaw in ligic. See my point?

They don't need to care. They've written and tested their code to work
in any browser. It doesn't matter which browser the customer uses, it's
still going to render.(correctly)

That's not the same as saying "Well, I don't care so I'm just gonna code
for the browsers I want to." Now, you have to worry about who's using
what.

See that point?

 

[Kris]

[something aa wrote earlier and found not worth quoting]

Kris, you cannot just cut in the middle of the discussion ignoring the
context which spans across several previous messages.

Of course I can. Ask the jury.

As you probably noticed that my ideoligy is to ignore DIY browsers or
unorthodox visitors who like to live in the last sentury and switch off
acheivements of civilisation in thier browsers.

Even when the government and MicroSoft themselves advice to do so?

I therefore do check just in
three browsers. Wrong. In two.

My my..

I ignore Netscape because to make something
work in Netscape means bending a W3C complient code.

Netscape? Netscape what?

My opponents are trying to prove that every customer is of great importance

You don't have to listen to your opponents. Walk across the street and
ask any shopowner. They can give you an answer to this issue right away.

and one should learn to write HTML which is compatible with every browser.

One should. One should also learn what the principle of Graceful
Degradation means. One should accept the nature of the WWW, one cannot
expect to fight it and win.

But at the same time they make risky statement that they do not care which
user agent are used.

I wholeheartedly agree. I could care less about what choice my visitors
make. I only care about defending their right to have a choice. This
keeps my visitors happy.

Obvious flaw in ligic. See my point?

No, I don't.

 

[Mark Parnell]

shit! you're not another little voice of mine are you? i cant keep up
with you all.

Sorry.

 

[brucie]

In alt.html Mark Parnell said:

Sorry.

aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaa BLACK HELICOPTERS!

 

[aa]

Thanks everybody who contributed.
I hope the big companies who obviously employ some morons who infest their
websites with JS menus, will come down here and see how wrong they are.
And all you here including rfucie of course will be in great demand and at
last will be able to move their progressive ideas from DIY home pages to
corporate sites.
I can't wait to see that revolution in the Web.

 

[aa]

You are wrong.

Excellent prove top my wild guess!
You can only know that if rf==brucie==Sam Hughes
Which means I am right

 

[aa]

Very good illustration to my previous post postulate that if someone
declares that he/her is going to ignore
another person it means only that he/she will be reading every post of their
enemy very carefully and either to spit into the screen, or reply dispite
all the plonks.

Rf-ucie who is by far the most prominent plonker is of course here in two
copies despite numerous plonks and promisses to ignore me. Thanks, friends,
for upholding my ideas.

 

[Els]

Excellent prove top my wild guess!
You can only know that if rf==brucie==Sam Hughes
Which means I am right

Funny. Add me to the list then.
rf==brucie==Sam Hughes==Els

 

[Mark Parnell]

Funny. Add me to the list then.
rf==brucie==Sam Hughes==Els

rf==brucie==Sam Hughes==Els==Mark Parnell (this group is starting to
look very empty...)

 

[Els]

rf==brucie==Sam Hughes==Els==Mark Parnell (this group is
starting to look very empty...)

Empty? I'd say rather full.
Did you notice brucie's sig has lost the voices? We are the
voices. It's full of voices in here, and brucie's naked now
without us ;-)

 

[aa]

Funny. Add me to the list then.

rf==brucie==Sam Hughes==Els==Mark Parnell (this group is starting to
look very empty...)

Would not be suprised if this is the case!
The way the members of this equiation think and speak proves that their
heads were coined on the same press-form.
I guess all other partisipants of this thread might be keen to append their
nicks to the train above.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Did you notice brucie's sig has lost the voices? We are the
voices. It's full of voices in here, and brucie's naked now
without us ;-)

He's added them back in now. And he's still naked. Hurray!

 

[Els]

He's added them back in now. And he's still naked. Hurray!

Yep, I saw that. And he followed your advice on the # thingy