JavaScript disabled - how likely?

[Richard Cornford]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Mick White <1Gq%b.92397$%7 2.74077@twister .nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>[color=blue]
> ... . But my shackles rise
> at the utterance of the word "impossible ".
> Capisce?[/color]

A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible ", or
the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
"not").

Richard.

[kaeli]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

In article <c1lg84$g8a$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>,
Richard@litotes .demon.co.uk enlightened us with...[color=blue]
> Mick White <1Gq%b.92397$%7 2.74077@twister .nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
> <snip>[color=green]
> > ... . But my shackles rise
> > at the utterance of the word "impossible ".
> > Capisce?[/color]
>
> A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible ", or
> the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
> "not").
>
> Richard.
>
>
>[/color]


From your post Message-ID: <c1l96r$srk$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>
--------[color=blue]
> Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
> browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.[/color]

When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible task.
--------

I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a task
that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

--
--
~kaeli~
When a clock is hungry, it goes back four seconds.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Mick White]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

kaeli wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <c1lg84$g8a$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>,
> Richard@litotes .demon.co.uk enlightened us with...
>[color=green]
>>Mick White <1Gq%b.92397$%7 2.74077@twister .nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
>><snip>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>... . But my shackles rise
>>>at the utterance of the word "impossible ".
>>>Capisce?[/color]
>>
>>A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible ", or
>>the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
>>"not").
>>
>>Richard.
>>[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> From your post Message-ID: <c1l96r$srk$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>
> --------
>[color=green]
>>Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
>>browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.[/color]
>
>
> When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible task.
> --------
>
> I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a task
> that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.
>[/color]

Well, it sounds good, but it's circuitous reasoning. But the tenor of
the argument is that we can never know the true percentage. To this I
offer a tried and true cliché: Never say never.
"What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"
Mick 2004

[Richard Cornford]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

kaeli <MPG.1aa809d144 a558e8989cb7@nn tp.lucent.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Richard@litotes .demon.co.uk enlightened us with...[color=green]
>> Mick White <1Gq%b.92397$%7 2.74077@twister .nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
>> <snip>[color=darkred]
>> > ... . But my shackles rise
>> > at the utterance of the word "impossible ".
>> > Capisce?[/color]
>>
>> A quick text search of my post did not find the word "impossible ", or
>> the word "possible" (which may, if present, have been preceded by
>> "not").[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> From your post Message-ID: <c1l96r$srk$1$8 302bc10@news.de mon.co.uk>
> --------[color=green]
>> Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of
>> browsers have javascript disabled. It's just not practical.[/color]
>
> When practicality makes a task impossible it becomes an impossible
> task.
> --------
>
> I myself happen to agree with that sentiment. It's just so large a
> task that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible.[/color]

But the message that inspired Mick White to propose his computer
sampling strategy was:-

< news:c1kuhh$ptd $1$8300dec7@new s.demon.co.uk >

- which apparently did not contain the word "impossible " and so should
not have raised shackles (hackles? - <self>assumes typo).

OTOH it is, for all practical purposes, an impossible task.

Richard.

[Randy Webb]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Mick White wrote:[color=blue]
> Randy Webb wrote:
>
> ....
>[color=green]
>>
>> I have access to "inspect" over 300 computers, none of which are
>> running IE as the default browser, and none of which are setup with
>> javascript enabled by default. Does that mean I can assume that 0% of
>> the web uses IE or Javascript enabled browsers?[/color]
>
>
> You could assume that, but you'd be wrong.[/color]

Of course I would be. And thats the fallacy in any attempt to determine
what percentage of browsers are in fact IE and how many of them have
javascript enabled or present.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Kevin Scholl wrote:[color=blue]
> Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=green]
>> If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
>> viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?[/color]
>
> There really is no such thing as reliable statistics of any kind for the
> Web, at least not on any far-reaching scale. The best you can do is
> monitor the client's logs, and adjust accordingly on a project by
> project basis.[/color]

And what would that accomplish? If you create JavaScript-only sites,
you will only log users with enabled JavaScript support. Think twice.


PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Stuart Palmer wrote:
[color=blue]
> Rule of thumb, always try and provide a non JS dependant user functional
> site. Yes, have JS in place, but try to offer the non JS option[/color]

Full ACK
[color=blue]
> like putting
> <a href="blah.html " target="_blank"
> onMouseOver="wi ndow.open('blah .html');">Link</a> this will work for both JS
> and non JS users.[/color]

It will, but it is suboptimal anyway. Rules of thumb:

1. Never force new windows upon users if not required.
2. Always cancel events if they are triggered by common behavior.
3. Never use meaningless captions for links, like "here".

So use

<a href="blah.html ">Meaningfu l caption</a>

or

<a
href="blah.html "
target="_blank"
onclick="window .open(
this.href, this.target, '...,resizable, scrollbars,...' )"[color=blue]
>Meaningful caption</a>[/color]
[color=blue]
> [Appended fullquote][/color]

Please do not do that, it is nonsense in the
context of an easily followable discussion.


PointedEars

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[color=blue]
> [...] Rules of thumb: [...]
> 2. Always cancel events if they are triggered by common behavior.
> [...]
> <a
> href="blah.html "
> target="_blank"
> onclick="window .open(
> this.href, this.target, '...,resizable, scrollbars,...' )"[color=green]
> >Meaningful caption</a>[/color][/color]

Grmbl. Of course it should have been

<a
href="blah.html "
target="_blank"
onclick="window .open(
this.href, this.target, '...,resizable, scrollbars,...' );
return false"[color=blue]
>Meaningful caption</a>[/color]


PointedEars, ready for bed

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Dennis M. Marks wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have read the following message from Mick White
> <mwhite13@BOGUS rochester.rr.co m>
> and have decided to lend my vast knowledge.[/color]

Please do not write attribution novels, thanks.
[color=blue]
> The writer said:[/color]

To be exact, the writer _wrote_. To be exact. And a proper
attribution line would tell the reader concisely who is the
author of the quoted text.
[color=blue]
> [...][/color]

Fullquotes are not recommended as well.

<http://www.netmeister. org/news/learn2quote.htm l>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Of course it is possible to determine what percentage of browsers have
>> javascript disabled. It's just not practical.
>>
>> One way is to sample [large number here] computers, and inspect every
>> one of them.
>> [...][/color]
>
> and my reply is:
> I'll bet that 99% of adult users do not even know what javascript is.[/color]

You'll lose.
[color=blue]
> So why would they turn it off, even if they knew how to?[/color]

Because they find their resources as precious as I find them.
[color=blue]
> Even knowing what javascript is, why turn it off other that to stop
> popups?[/color]

Security reasons. Sounds silly, because J(ava)Script itself has AFAIK
no known security leaks, but it provides access to APIs that either have
such or can be exploited that way.


PointedEars

[Richard Cornford]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Mick White <Zos%b.85455$n6 2.5106@twister. nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>[color=blue]
> "What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"[/color]

That is simply not true. For example, it is not, and never will be,
possible for matter to achieve a velocity that exceeds the speed of
light. That restriction is fundamental to the nature of the universe.

If you change the frame of reference and ask if it is possible for
matter to move between to points in space in less time than it would
take light to travel the intervening distance then that may well be
possible. Current suggestions centre around possible methods of getting
from point A to point B without going through the intervening space. And
so there is no need for any matter to achieve a velocity greater than
the speed of light; the fundamental restriction inherent in the nature
of the universe is side-stepped.

A similar situation applies to the gathering of meaningful web
statistics. Some of the significant restrictions are inherent to a
global network operating on HTTP protocols. Gathering meaningful
statistics from such a network is impossible and will remain impossible.

That doesn't mean that there could not, at some future time, be a global
network that did facilitate the constant, comprehensive and accurate
monitoring of everyone that connected to it. I can't see that being a
popular change in our current cultural climate but it is not impossible.

But in the same way as I will not be proposing that people review their
footwear budget in light of the possibility of commuting by wormhole, I
will not be recommending that they give credence to current web
statistics because they may some day be gathered from a global network
that facilitates their accuracy.

Richard.

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litote s.demon.co.uk> writes:
[color=blue]
> Mick White <Zos%b.85455$n6 2.5106@twister. nyroc.rr.com> wrote:
> <snip>[color=green]
>> "What is impossible now may be possible tomorrow"[/color]
>
> That is simply not true.[/color]

I concur. Either it is impossible or it isn't. If it is possible
tomorrow, then it is also possible today (we may not know *how* to do
it, but it is still possible).
[color=blue]
> For example, it is not, and never will be,
> possible for matter to achieve a velocity that exceeds the speed of
> light. That restriction is fundamental to the nature of the universe.[/color]

.... if our current model of the universe is correct.
We might not know how to do it, and even believe that we can't,
but when, tomorrow, we discover the ultra heavy tachyon, we'll
have to admit that it was possible after all. And revise our
physical laws to match the new measurements.

Not that I think that it will happen, but I can't guarantee that it is
impossible.

It is impossible to find a predicate in a consistent logical system
that is both true and its negation is also true. It is impossible
today, and it will also be impossible tomorrow (because of the
definition of consistent)
[color=blue]
> A similar situation applies to the gathering of meaningful web
> statistics.[/color]

Independent of the physical analogy, I agree wholeheartedly with this.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[George Jempty]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Mason A. Clark wrote:[color=blue]
> If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the
> viewer will not have javascript? Anyone have data?
>
> Mason C[/color]

Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10% of
viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:

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

Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something, this
is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that gives
the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.

Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics ", a word that
doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to ignore
the users that don't have Javascript....' , etcetera.

Other "responders " descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take it
to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup. alt.buffoonery is
my suggestion.

[Randy Webb]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

George Jempty wrote:
[color=blue]
> Mason A. Clark wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the viewer will
>> not have javascript? Anyone have data?
>>
>> Mason C[/color]
>
>
> Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10% of
> viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp[/color]

Your "site" that you cite is totally useless. If you had bothered to
read, and attempt to understand, the other replies in this thread you
would know why.
[color=blue]
> Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
> c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something, this
> is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that gives
> the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.[/color]

Huh? They asked a question about how likely something was, and then got
answered. Web stats are *useless*.
[color=blue]
> Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics ", a word that
> doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
> impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to ignore
> the users that don't have Javascript....' , etcetera.[/color]

Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.
[color=blue]
> Other "responders " descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take it
> to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup. alt.buffoonery is
> my suggestion.[/color]

Are you actually as stupid as you act? Or did you change your last name
from Hester?

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Randy Webb <hikksnotathome @aol.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> George Jempty wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
> browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.[/color]

For a statistics page, I think it is rather good. Especially the part
below the header "Statistics Are Often Misleading" :)

Ofcourse the statistics of this page is skewed by its content. It is
about web development, so web developers are more likely to frequent
it. I believe web developers are also more likely to use an
alternative (read: non-IE) browser, since they are by necessity aware
of them. Too bad, because I liked the numbers (Opera steadily
increasing, now at 2.2%, and IE only at 80%).

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleD OM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[George Jempty]

Re: JavaScript disabled - how likely?

Randy Webb wrote:
[color=blue]
> George Jempty wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Mason A. Clark wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> If I use javascript on my page, how likely is it that the viewer
>>> will not have javascript? Anyone have data?
>>>
>>> Mason C[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is another site that provides data that suggests that around 10%
>> of viewers, give or take a point or two, may not have Javascript enabled:
>>
>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp[/color]
>
>
> Your "site" that you cite is totally useless. If you had bothered to
> read, and attempt to understand, the other replies in this thread you
> would know why.[/color]

Read the linked page. It has its own disclaimer about stats.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Having said this I just cannot help but comment on the sorry state of
>> c.l.js. At the time of this posting, unless I'm missing something,
>> this is only the third or fourth (if that) out of dozens of posts that
>> gives the OP the sort of answer they are obviously looking for.[/color]
>
>
> Huh? They asked a question about how likely something was, and then got
> answered. Web stats are *useless*.[/color]

The OP asked for data, not stats
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Instead we got all sorts of invective about "statistics ", a word that
>> doesn't even show in the original post. Worse yet we get buffoons
>> impugning the OP's motives -- 'if you're looking for an excuse to
>> ignore the users that don't have Javascript....' , etcetera.[/color]
>
>
> Yet, you post a url to a site that doesn't even list the #1, #2, or #3
> browser on a MAC? Its utterly useless.[/color]

What's utterly useless. A browser on a MAC. Or a MAC itself?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Other "responders " descend into a bunch of theoretical rubbish. Take
>> it to another thread. Or better yet, another newsgroup.
>> alt.buffoonery is my suggestion.[/color]
>
>
> Are you actually as stupid as you act? Or did you change your last name
> from Hester?[/color]

Hmmm. Get personal? Or do something to actually improve the abysmal
noise to signal ratio? Screw the people who come to this newsgroup for
a little guidance: let's get personal instead!!