JavaScript & Web Design: Question Of Continued Use

[Horrorsphere]

As a web designer who has just recently gotten "back into the game", I'm curious about all the "anti-JavaScript" sentiments I've been seeing around lately.

It seems that many are actually using FF to block JS, as there have been even recently more issues with security and sites that use JS.

The problem for me is that there are certain features that can be added to a website using only JS, because DHTML etc. still cannot render such things. Marquees, certain rollover techniques for images, multi-tree menus etc.

The only way around this would to be use Macromedia Flash, and do everything in an art program, which can be far more complicated and time-consuming. Plus, I do not have Flash at the moment.

- So, I guess I'm wondering... are more and more people blocking JavaScript?
- Is it something even worth continuing to use in web design?
- Does is present any "dangers" to a site or visitor of a site that uses it, even if there's no malicious code embedded within?
- Is it "fading out of use", being blocked by that many that it would effect a website, or is it worth continuing to use as a tool for certain things that nothing but a program such as Flash (a $700 prog) could achieve?

I'm really curious as to the feedback to this, and what you all here do personally in terms of using and/or allowing JS in your websites and/or browsing habits.

Cheers.

 

[Paithar]

I myself haven't seen anyone blocking JavaScript. In fact, I've seen JS use increase, especially with the upswing in AJAX and web 2.0 stuff. The company I work for uses JS quite frequently and as far as I know they don't plan on switching to something else because "JavaScript isn't really being used anymore".

 

[maw]

Not many people actually disable JS nowadays..well, if my server logs are to be believed, it looks like well over 99.5% of our users leave it on. All the recent AJAX and Web 2.0 stuff as well as many cool new frameworks (Prototype, jQuery, etc..) has really given JS a whole new lease on life, its even more popular than ever nowadays.

But after reading your post, there are a couple of things you need to be aware of
1) Image rollovers are best handled by CSS. The same can probably be said for dropdown menus over the next couple of years as users move off the crappy IE6 platform.
2) Your site is only as secure as you make it. I can't tell you how many times I've seen sites that rely solely on JS for input validation, or do not properly sanitize their form input fields against things like XSS attacks (E.g. allowing users to enter unfiltered javascript code directly into a form field).

JS is an awesome tool for UI enhancements and immediate user feedback, BUT you should always code a fallback behaviors for those who deliberately disable it.

 

[BillLeeLee]

Javascript is fine to use on a site, but I whitelist sites that can use Javascript, rather than just allow every site I visit to use it. It works better, just like whitelisting sites that can load images.

 

[Retronym]

May I be frank? People who freely disable javascript "just because"(**) are on their own. Fuck 'em. Anytime I hear someone bitching about not being able to view our sites, its the first thing I check. Usually goes something like this:

Dumb ass: Sorry to bother you, but I wanted you to know your site is not working.
Me: Im sorry to hear you are having problems...(blah blah) lets see if we can pinpoint the problem.
Dumb ass: OK
Me:Fist, do you see a prompt at the top of Fire Fox (etc.) about Active X ?
[FROM HERE THERE ARE 2 OUTCOMES]
1. Dumb ass: Yes.
Me: Allow the prompt through.

....Dumb ass: Oh that fixed it....

2. Me: Check and see if java is disabled.
Dumb ass: Oh it is. Is that bad?
Me: Our site is javascript. You have disabled our site from properly loading in your browser.
Dumb ass: Oh, ok....

If you are convinced the sandbox is not good enough, then you except the consequences of disabling the most ubiquitous web tool around.

To me, its the same as deciding to run water in your gas tank of your car, because gasoline pollutes the environment.

/rant.

**edit**

 

[maw]

2. Me: Check and see if java is disabled.
Dumb ass: Oh it is. Is that bad?
Me: Our site is javascript. You have disabled our site from properly loading in your browser.
Dumb ass: Oh, ok....

If you are convinced the sandbox is not good enough, then you except the consequences of disabling the most ubiquitous web tool around.

To me, its the same as deciding to run water in your gas tank of your car, because gasoline pollutes the environment.

/rant.

heh! In my experience, the folks who disable JS are often the same ones who also disable images, cookies, etc... then complain that most of the sites they visit don't work properly. Now I'm all for coding to accommodate those users who legitimately need to have it off (e.g. - those dealing with sensitive user data who want to reduce their security risks as much as possible), but those users cannot expect to get the same experience that all the other users are getting.

What irks me is when they complain that their user experience is not as rich as those with JS on. Well, DUH!! that's the whole frickin reason why you need JS on.

 

[RobertMacUser]

Users who browse without javascript support expect a 'different' web experience. Many of the most viewed sites on the web (the entire Yahoo, Google, About networks, Facebook, Myspace, etc) use heavy amounts of js. It would be good to keep your site minimally usable without js, this keeps the odd user in the loop, and leaves the possibility of Mobile web support for your site.

As far as using marquee, and dhtml menus.... please don't! Js is great when it takes an acceptable user experience, and makes it better. For example, using AJAX for a painless form-handling experience compared to having to load many pages for a dialog.

As far as Flash goes, according to my server logs (1.2 million users a day,) we're seeing an minor increase in flash being blocked. In addition to users blocking flash via their browser or plugins, users are likely becoming trained in blocking flash mentally. Usability eye-tracking tests, as well as flash ad performance suggests that users are suspecting ads in flash. Note however, flash without moving elements, that also matches the visual design of its surroundings seems less susceptible to this problem.

 

[Korialstrasza]

May I be frank? People who disable javascript are on their own. Fuck 'em. Anytime I hear someone bitching about not being able to view our sites, its the first thing I check. Usually goes something like this:

Dumb ass: Sorry to bother you, but I wanted you to know your site is not working.
Me: Im sorry to hear you are having problems...(blah blah) lets see if we can pinpoint the problem.
Dumb ass: OK
Me:Fist, do you see a prompt at the top of Fire Fox (etc.) about Active X ?
[FROM HERE THERE ARE 2 OUTCOMES]
1. Dumb ass: Yes.
Me: Allow the prompt through.

....Dumb ass: Oh that fixed it....

2. Me: Check and see if java is disabled.
Dumb ass: Oh it is. Is that bad?
Me: Our site is javascript. You have disabled our site from properly loading in your browser.
Dumb ass: Oh, ok....

If you are convinced the sandbox is not good enough, then you except the consequences of disabling the most ubiquitous web tool around.

To me, its the same as deciding to run water in your gas tank of your car, because gasoline pollutes the environment.

/rant.

Geez, maybe they just don't know any better? Believe it or not, some people don't even know what javascript is! Let alone if they should enable it or not.

 

[Shadow2531]

Javascript isn't going anywhere. You're required to have it on for most sites to function. It's not quite there yet, but turning off javascript support in your browser is almost as bad as turning off HTML support. A lot of Web applications 1.0 (HTML5) will rely on JS also.

Of course, it depends on the site. Some authors provide graceful fallback so the site is still usable without JS. Accessibility is important.

Some authors use a zillion different js libraries all at once and it causes pages to respond like crap. This is one of the reasons js gets turned off for some sites or why some sites are ignored. If your awesome-looking, js-enabled site isn't speedy, it's not so awesome.

An example would be yahoo's new webmail interface. It's just utter crap. Or, think of the difference between digg and reddit.

Gmail (besides some markup issues) has a pretty good compromise. It has a pretty decent js-enabled normal view (although slightly beefy because of all the XHR and dynamic loading) and a basic HTML view that doesn't require js (which *works* nicely).

One thing that is annoying is when JS is used, but isn't really necessary. For example, try using youtube without JS. It's possible to embed flash without JS, but they don't allow that. They also don't provide a link to the .flv video if flash isn't installed (so you can play it in videolan for example). They have their reason, just saying.

For security, turning off js for sites by default is not too bad of an idea. However, it can fail because the site might be totally broken with no indication that there's more if JS is turned on . For your site though, you can make things clear.

The basic idea is to use javacript to enhance web pages, not replace them.

 

[Deleted member 65081]

To me, its the same as deciding to run water in your gas tank of your car, because gasoline pollutes the environment.

Well done, this thread wouldn't have been complete without a car analogy!

As for the trends, every source I can find- including the servers I watch logs on, javascript is almost exclusively enabled (for good or bad) in some capacity.

 

[:LJ:]

May I be frank? People who disable javascript are on their own. Fuck 'em. Anytime I hear someone bitching about not being able to view our sites, its the first thing I check.

Nice rant. Unfortunately, you're clearly completely unaware of legitimate reasons for disabling JS - for example, accessibility for the visually disabled (and other impairments). I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in the UK it's against the law to discriminate against the visually impaired by implementing a non-WAI-compliant website; the WAI standard itself states quite clearly that JS can be used to enhance the experience, but it cannot be used to provide functionality which is not available should JS be disabled.

It's narrow-minded, idiotic comments like this which remind me why the web's in its current shit state in the first place.

 

[Retronym]

^^ lol, well no one's busted down my door yet....

In regards to the blind, I should have mentioned, we take one of two routes, depending on size of website, and time: 1: Alternate website for the blind 2: Put the web files on a CD and mail it to them. We never advertised to be fully complaint with BOBBY. To be honest, I don't have enough time to make alternate sites, as I have too much to do as it is. Its just easier to personally assist the few exceptions we get individually, rather than to alter the dozens of modifications I make each week. Also, most importantly, our websites are members-only, so its easy to give individual attention to those who need it. There is literally only one or two who occasionally need anything.

Obviously I wasn't talking about the handicapped. Just people who chose freely to disable it because they felt like it.

BTW, I ran hardforum.com through Bobby and it returned errors and warnings.

 

[maw]

^^ lol, well no one's busted down my door yet....
To be honest, I don't have enough time to make alternate sites, as I have too much to do as it is.

that's why you use CSS media directives and valid markup. Write your content once and feed a different style (or no style) to different user agents as needed.

 

[:LJ:]

^^ lol, well no one's busted down my door yet....

In regards to the blind, I should have mentioned, we take one of two routes, depending on size of website, and time: 1: Alternate website for the blind 2: Put the web files on a CD and mail it to them. .......

See, this is why following some simple rules for accessibility is a good thing. Developing an alternate website exclusively for at most 1% of the user base of an average site is crazy talk, and burning/mailing a CD to each of that 1% isn't exactly genius talk - especially for a large, dynamic site ('course, I don't know if your site is a 2 page static site or a 1000 page dynamic monster). Point is, there are very few vital bits of functionality which JS alone can achieve. Validation should never be done client-side only, and almost all AJAX libraries these days degrade gracefully when JS is disabled.

Now, honestly...I hate the WAI standard, but the newer WCAG isn't exactly stellar either. However, use the main priority points from either, and you'll inevitably end up with a tighter site. And, give the solutions to the accessibility problem that you've listed above, a more cost-effective site. I guess it's a question of habits.

Please don't take my post as a personal attack - I figured you'd qualify the "fuck 'em" statement, but I couldn't let it go either (I should probably also stop cruising the forums when I'm in a bad mood ).

 

[Retronym]

Nah, you're fine. A bad mood is also what caused me to make my comment in the first place, lol. The scenario I described had happened just the previous day.

I never bothered w/ CSS. I will look into it. I admit I'm no web expert. I'm actually a graphic designer, who happens to be doing some web.