UBB.Developers Forums General Discussion Suggestions and Feedback More javascript?

Another question for everyone. Looking at some of the new features to add, such as making it easier to get multiple users into certain groups, change read and write permissions, etc, this would probably be alot easier if more javascript was incorporated to do these types of things. So my question is this. On a general level, what is everyone's opinion on using more javascript in the program?

I think more javascripts for the admin interface is alright, as long as
the operations can be done without javascripts.

But I really do think keeping as little javascript as possibile
in the user's interface will be a good idea.

In my opinion, JavaScript is okay for Admin functions, because any serious webmaster more than likely has a JavaScript capable browser. For general user (non-Admin) functions I would stay away from it, though, due to the browser compatibility issue.

Sounds good to me. I go along with Kli and Gerrit then.
Thecounter.com is a fairly widely-used stats site and if you assume their own site's stats are accurate then 9% have no JavaScript or < JavaScript v1.2 http://s1.thecounter.com/counter/143984.vmain

Darren.

I don't like the idea of using JavaScript... i'm not saying it shouldn't be used if it's the only way to make life easy... but it should be used as little as possible...

Sebastien.


[:red]Sebastien Lahtinen
[i][:white]www.chatsplat.com
[][email protected][/]

I'm pretty much with the others here ... little or no JS for the users and keep it to a minimum for the Administrator (or at least have alternative non-JS ways of doing things).

Simon Wolf,
Webmaster,
Access All Areas
http://www.athree.com

I've never been able to understand the anti-javascript lobby. I find it extremely useful.

[]http://www.amdragon.com/images/eileensig.gif[/]

My thoughts exactly.

Eileen,

Here's my take on it: When it works, Javascript CAN be useful, efficient, and time-saving. The problem that I have with it is when webmasters create sites or portions of a site that RELY on Javascript. To me, that's just laziness on their part... and it's inconsiderate to users who don't have/don't want Javascript.

When a user without a javascript capable browser (there's more of them out there then you probably think) comes along, the site (or individual page) is virtually useless. It can be extremely frustrating.

Not only do you have to consider those browsers that can't handle Javascript, you also have to take into consideration users who voluntarily turn Javascript off (I've been known to do that myself-- I ALWAYS have Java off, and some days I'll turn javascript off as well).

I've been working as a webmaster for quite some time now, and I always try to design the pages I create to work flawlessly on ANY browser (I'm a big supporter of the "Any Browser" campaign BTW- http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/). My sites may look better on some browsers than others... but they'll ALWAYS work.

Things like Javascript, Java, frames, extensive graphics, etc, should be EXTRAS in my opinion. They should be used to ENHANCE a page, and *never* be a requirement.

It depends on whether you see yourself as offering a privilege or merely a service. You can't dine in a 5 star restaurant if you aren't wearing a jacket and they won't let you onto the ski slopes if all you have is a tin tray. If you want to go the the 'best' places you have to meet the requirements.

[]http://www.amdragon.com/images/eileensig.gif[/]

JavaScript

- for admin features: YES
- for user features: NO

Thanks,

Carsten

--
Carsten Müller, Hamburg (Germany)

>It depends on whether you see yourself as
>offering a privilege or merely a service. You
>can't dine in a 5 star restaurant if you aren't
>wearing a jacket and they won't let you onto the
>ski slopes if all you have is a tin tray.

The WWW is a much different world than real life, and I don't think your analogy holds up in this "world". As a webmaster, you should be as accomodating to your users as possible-- that means they should be able to enjoy your site regardless of whether they're surfing on a brand spankin' new PIII 800 Mhz power-house PC packed with all the latest goodies, with a T1 connection and the most up-to-date version of IE or Netscape.... or whether they're chugging along with a 14.4 modem, using a lynx browser on a toaster-oven that's been jury-rigged to act like a PC.

I know that you've made some very nice sites, Eileen, but I don't know much about your background-- whether you're purely a hobbyist or whether you actually work in this field. What I CAN tell you though, is that I make my living as a webmaster. In this business, the main objective seems fairly obvious to me: to draw as many visitors to your site as possible. More visitors = more hits. More hits = greater revenue. Seems simple enough to me. So why would you want to shut ANYONE out unless you absolutely have no alternative?

Besides the money-making aspect of it... I think it's just plain rude to force my users to use a certain browser to access my site. I want them to come to my site, but it's not up to me to tell them HOW to get there.

I don't know about you, but when I come across a site that denies me access because I'm not using a 4.0 browser, or I'm not java/javascript enabled, or I "need to download the SO-AND-SO plugin"... I simply skip it. It's not worth my time. The webmaster doesn't want to take the time and effort to accomodate me, so I won't take the time and effort required to get into their "5 star" site.

A skilled webmaster will find a way to make their site accessible by everyone while still including all the "goodies" and "extras" (javascript, etc.) for the "power users". These "extras" should provide shortcuts, easier ways of doing things, or they can just be fun little bonuses that don't take away from the functionality of the site if they can't be used/viewed/accessed.

The lone exception I can think of involves Secure Socket Layers. For security reasons, I can see SSL support with a certain minimum encrytion level being a REQUIREMENT for some sites (ie. e-commerce). In such cases, there's really no way to guarantee the same level of security with browsers that don't support SSL, so there may be no alternative than to deny access.

>If you want to go the the 'best' places you have to meet the requirements.

Again, this is the world wide web-- we're all equal here. We're all just a bunch of faceless cyber-names moseying around the "information super-highway". The idea that any of us are elite or privileged, or that any of the sites out there are "5 star" seems kinds of ridiculous to me... and a bit pompous and arrogant.


Anyhow, Eileen... please don't take this as a flame. I respect you as a poster here; we just appear to disagree on this particular issue. This is also getting getting off topic from the original post, so I apologize to everyone for the interruption.

Eileen,

lots of users decided to turn off JavaScript support in their web browsers - for security reasons. If my site would require JavaScript, I would tell the users: "Forget about your security reasons. If you want to use this site, turn on JavaScript!"

Some users wouldn't understand this.

That's my opinion.

Carsten

--
Carsten Müller, Hamburg (Germany)

OK, I'll confess I was being deliberately contentious. You are of course quite right. I'm retired now, so I can afford to indulge myself but before then I did honor the guidelines you listed and even now I cross-check a selection of browsers to make sure nobody is missing anything vital. At the WOPR site, which I created and ran for years, I was able to bend the rules to a certain extent because I knew the people who came there were power-users. Funny thing is that even though these were hard-core Microsoft Office users a high percentage of them insisted on using Netscape so I always had the stuggle to maintain compatibility.

However I do think our w3t users should be encouraged to accept (simple) Javascript. At present, we have to insist on them accepting cookies. Neither of these is much of a threat and they allow things nothing else will. We have to be careful that we don't get so hamstrung by legacy setups and legacy mindsets that we cripple our sites unneccessarily when by clever coding we can have it all.

[]http://www.amdragon.com/images/eileensig.gif[/]

It looks as though the general concensus is "no javascript" except in the Admin section.

[]http://www.amdragon.com/images/eileensig.gif[/]

And that reminds me about cookies...
Some of my users denined to use the system because it requires
cookies...

I'm also very curious that whether the netscape users visiting your site
have their browser clashed when running javascripts (I'm a long time
Netscape user - starting from 0.9 beta on xwin - javascripts sometimes
do stop my netscape from responding).

I've used Netscape a long time too - since the days when most people used Mosaic. Javascript shouldn't trouble Netscape - after all, they invented it.
Come on over and have a look at http://www.amdragon.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl.

My sites are always designed to run on the current version of both the 'big 2' browsers. I keep them backwards compatible and these days I even test them on WebTV. You can't go on forever catering for every deviation in the book or you'd end up with something very dull and boring. If some people elect to deliberately limit their own web experience then that's their perogative but it doesn't mean everybody else should be served watered down pages.

[]http://www.amdragon.com/images/eileensig.gif[/]

Your site is good. I know netscape invented javascripts though (I've even
done projects in livewire - the server-side version of javascripts, now a
dead product). I agree javascripts can enhance the Web browing experience,
but I also agree the functionality should not be depending on it.

That's what I figured. I don't think it would be wise to have the front-end rely on javascript anyways because people might lose some visitors. But I think it could be very benificial in the admin section.

On that note, I'm not a javascript guru, just been getting into it for some projects at work so I imagine I'll probably have a few questions along the way[]/w3timages/icons/wink.gif[/].