FAQ Topic - I have <a href="javascript:somefunction()"> what ... ?

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - I have <a href="javascrip t:somefunction( )"what
.... ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever the rest of your question, this is generally a very bad
use of the javascript pseudo protocol. It was designed so that a
function could return a new page. For example:
` javascript:"<p> Hello</p>" `.
Using it simply to call a function when a link is clicked causes
an error in user agents that do not support javascript, or have
javascript disabled. Instead, use
` <a href="something .html" onclick="somefu nction();return false"`
where something.html is a meaningful alternative. Alternatively,
place the onclick event on another element so that users without
JavaScript aren't even aware that it does anything.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223.html

===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ is at http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

[marss]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?

Whatever the rest of your question, this is generally a very bad
use of the javascript pseudo protocol. It was designed so that a
function could return a new page. For example:
` javascript:"<p> Hello</p>" `.

There are many things in the world that are used in a different way
than they were designed for. Only about 4% of users have javascript
disabled, probably a half of them are bots.

[Richard Cornford]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?

marss wrote:

>

>Whatever the rest of your question, this is generally a very bad
>use of the javascript pseudo protocol. It was designed so that a
>function could return a new page. For example:
>` javascript:"<p> Hello</p>" `.

>
There are many things in the world that are used in a different
way than they were designed for.

And a significantly proportion of those usages are a bad idea.

Only about 4% of users have javascript
disabled, probably a half of them are bots.

How could you tell (especially given the "self-fulfilling" nature of the
consequences of people taking web statistics seriously)?

But overall, what is your point?

Richard.

[marss]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?


Richard Cornford wrote:

Only about 4% of users have javascript
disabled, probably a half of them are bots.

>
How could you tell (especially given the "self-fulfilling" nature of the
consequences of people taking web statistics seriously)?

Figures are taken here:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/June/javas.php

But overall, what is your point?

1.<a href="javascrip t:somefunction( );" ...
2.<a href="something .html" onclick="somefu nction();return false">
First variant looks more user friendly because user have a right to
know what will happen when he will click on a link. IMHO.

All ASP.Net are build on using <a href="javascrip t:somefunction( )...
Are you sure that only silly developers work in Microsoft?

This topic is out-of-date in my opinion. Without offence.
Regards, Mykola

[Richard Cornford]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?

marss wrote:

Richard Cornford wrote:
>

Only about 4% of users have javascript
disabled, probably a half of them are bots.

>>
>How could you tell (especially given the "self-fulfilling"
>nature of the consequences of people taking web statistics
>seriously)?

>
Figures are taken here:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/June/javas.php

And where is the link to the page that explains the details of the
statistics gathering process in the detail that allows the reader to
judge whether, and if so how, effects such as self-biasing and the
fundamental limitations on statistics gathering inherent in HTTP, have
been addressed? Statistics are not any less bogus if you employ a
machine to turn garbage data into them than when you make them up off
the top of your head.

It is also questionable whether a link should be something that triggers
an action that is not navigation (or conceptually equivalent to
navigation). If the side effect alone is the desired outcome the more
appropriate elements would be <NPUT type=buttonand <BUTTON
type=button>, neither of which would be expected so show anything in the
status bare at all.

>But overall, what is your point?

>
1.<a href="javascrip t:somefunction( );" ...
2.<a href="something .html" onclick="somefu nction();return false">
First variant looks more user friendly because user have a right to
know what will happen when he will click on a link. IMHO.

In what sense does the user "know what will happen" when they see
'javascript:som efunction();' in their status bar? Even the tiny minority
who know what javascript is would not know what 'somefunction' was going
to do without seeing its source code and understanding the actions coded
in it.

All ASP.Net are build on using <a href="javascrip t:somefunction( )...

That would be extremely foolish given the well-known and generally
undesirable, side effects of executing javascript pseudo-protocol HREFs
on Microsoft browsers prior to IE7.

Are you sure that only silly developers work in Microsoft?

Increasingly. An impression reinforced whenever I visit MSDN and get
that "parentElement. parentElement is null or not an object" error (an
error which means that MS are employing people who are writing IE only
code (the easiest client-side programming task going) and still cannot
write code that does not error all over the place).

This topic is out-of-date in my opinion.

<snip>

Not until IE6 (and all the earlier versions of MS's browser (plus the
less common browsers that took the exaction of javascript
pseudo-protocol HREFs as navigation and so went into an unpredictable
'pending' state following their use)) have gone out of existence.

Richard.

[marss]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?


Richard Cornford wrote:

And where is the link to the page that explains the details of the
statistics gathering process in the detail that allows the reader to
judge whether, and if so how, effects such as self-biasing and the
fundamental limitations on statistics gathering inherent in HTTP, have
been addressed? Statistics are not any less bogus if you employ a
machine to turn garbage data into them than when you make them up off
the top of your head.

I agree with you somewhat. But this data rather similar to my own
experience. Three simple questions:
1.Do you use browser with disabled javascript while surf the web?
2.How many of your friends or associates use browser with disabled
javascript while surf the web?
3.Did you ever use browser with disabled javascript?
My answers:
1. No
2. 0
3. Yes, long time ago, when was starting to use internet and was
afraid of my own shadow not to mention javascript. And a few time for
testing. Quite keep within 4%.
Whether was I useful as visitor/buyer/customer at the time of such
browsing? I guess, no. Laboriousness of development of site that takes
into account such type of users is not worthy of it.

In what sense does the user "know what will happen" when they see
'javascript:som efunction();' in their status bar? Even the tiny minority
who know what javascript is would not know what 'somefunction' was going
to do without seeing its source code and understanding the actions coded
in it.

At least he will known that javascript will be executed.

Are you sure that only silly developers work in Microsoft?

>
Increasingly. An impression reinforced whenever I visit MSDN and get
that "parentElement. parentElement is null or not an object" error (an
error which means that MS are employing people who are writing IE only
code (the easiest client-side programming task going) and still cannot
write code that does not error all over the place).

:). MSDN is another story. I guess it is older than many of the modern
browsers and it is too large to be reworked. Although, maybe, it
should be done.

Regards,
Mykola

[Richard Cornford]

Re: FAQ Topic - I have &lt;a href=&quot;java script:somefunc tion()&quot;&gt ; what ... ?

marss wrote:

>
Richard Cornford wrote:
>

>And where is the link to the page that explains the details
>of the statistics gathering process in the detail that allows
>the reader to judge whether, and if so how, effects such as
>self-biasing and the fundamental limitations on statistics
>gathering inherent in HTTP, have been addressed? Statistics
>are not any less bogus if you employ a machine to turn garbage
>data into them than when you make them up off the top of your
>head.

>
>
I agree with you somewhat. But this data rather similar to
my own experience.

There are very good reasons to believe that all published/cited/made-up
"web statistics" are a nonsense that can have no more than a
coincidental relationship with reality. Here you are saying that you are
inclined to believe some particular 'statistic' because it corresponds
with your expectation (and so, by implication, would
disbelieve/disregard another 'statistic' if it did not fit your
expectations). With no objective/reasoned grounds for
believing/disbelieving any 'web statistics' the criteria of assigning
credibility based on a 'statistics' correspondence with a preconception
may seem to be the best that is available, but it is still self-deluding
nonsense and a very long way from grounds for making decisions.

Three simple questions:
1.Do you use browser with disabled javascript while surf the web?

Depends on the browser I am using. It is only relatively recently that
the proportion of embedded browsers with javascript support passed 50%.

2.How many of your friends or associates use browser with disabled
javascript while surf the web?

What is an "associate" in this context? When I worked in financial
services, a few years back now, at least two of our clients (who cannot
be named for confidentiality reasons, but were banks and stock-broking
companies) had javascript disabled on all the browsers on all their
internal PCs. Maybe a bit paranoid of them, but a reality probably
putting the number of people I have certainly known to have javascript
disabled (at least while at work) in the area of 5-6 thousand (and these
are the sort of well (often very well) paid individuals who most
e-commerce endeavours would like as their customers).

As to my friends; for some strange reason the majority of my friends are
designers, developers, programmers and IT professionals, so not at all
representative of the general public. They do, however, have a distinct
tendency to use non-mainstream browser and browsers in non-default
configurations.

3.Did you ever use browser with disabled javascript?

Yes, but not as often as I use browsers that do not have javascript to
start with.

My answers:
1. No
2. 0
3. Yes, long time ago, when was starting to use internet and was
afraid of my own shadow not to mention javascript. And a few
time for testing. Quite keep within 4%.

Whether was I useful as visitor/buyer/customer at the time of such
browsing? I guess, no.

So who was losing out; you or the people who could not take your money
off you?

Laboriousness of development of site that takes
into account such type of users is not worthy of it.

When I want an estimate of the cost of designing and creating a
non-javascript dependent web site I will ask someone who knows how to
create one, no someone how is looking for an excuse for never finding
out. Much as when I want an estimate for the cost of piano tuning I
would ask a piano tuner rather than the first individual I encountered
with a spanner, no matter how willing he may be to undertake the job.

>In what sense does the user "know what will happen" when they
>see 'javascript:som efunction();' in their status bar? Even the
>tiny minority who know what javascript is would not know what
>'somefunctio n' was going to do without seeing its source code
>and understanding the actions coded in it.

>
At least he will known that javascript will be executed.

<snip>

No he won't. You are thinking about web developers/designers again.
Users are random members of the public who have absolutely no reason for
even knowing what javascript is, let alone that it is capable of
'executing', or the implications if its doing so.

Richard.