Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How many users have JavaScript disabled?

developer.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#51

Post by wtallis »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #39
metageek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's potentially a lot of extra work. If your site's UI is heavy on the AJAX, a non-JS option basically means writing a completely separate UI. Explain to an investor, "We don't have features X, Y, and Z, which our competitors have, because we were spending time maintaining the non-JS version for 2% of our user base.".

Also, non-Javascript Luddism may correlate with other forms of Luddism. For example, non-eCommerce Luddism or non-ads-clicking Luddism. So it might be that you're doing all that work for people who are not going to benefit your bottom line as much as the typical user. It's something each business probably has to measure for itself, but the people saying, "I don't see what the big deal is," just aren't looking hard en…

I don't think Luddites are savvy enough to figure out how to disable JavaScript, and most of the people who disable JavaScript are probably at the opposite end of the spectrum: people who know the privacy and security risks of JavaScript, and who would rather a website be obviously broken on the first visit than have it be subversively annoying and ad-laden.

If an e-commerce site won't let me get to their product list and see prices without cookies and Javascript, I won't buy from them if there are alternatives. There's no real justification for making a simple online store 100% AJAX for even the most basic features, so the sites that do that don't get my money. (They probably don't do to well from an SEO perspective, either.)

Blogs that require cookies and JavaScript before they'll show their content are obviously more concerned with spamming me than being of use to me, so they also get closed immediately.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#52

Post by andrewf »

bphogan wrote: post #49
andrewf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This is an academic point for me right now - I'm building an app in Facebook, and Facebook requires Javascript.) It seems like your zoom software interacts badly with behaviour that's common on some websites. Disabling Javascript seems like a reasonable workaround, but not without cost. I'm curious - why are web developers the target of your aggravation, rather than the people who wrote your zoom software? It seems…

I am aggravated by the developers because developers are the ones who confuse interactions (clicks) with invitations to interact (hovers). When I move my mouse, my viewport moves. That's by design, as the mouse pointer can be placed near words so I can see it. Keeping the mouse pointer visible is important when you can't see it well. Now imagine I'm surfing as a blind user, and I follow a link from HN, and my screen…

The iPad doesn't have the concept of a hover, so websites pretty much have to work without it.

It'd be nice if Apple could turn around and kill the hover in Safari when somebody's using the zoom feature. It'd be even nicer if you could toggle this on and off right now (right Apple button, maybe?) because mouse hovering in the zoom application is obviously _not_ necessarily the same user action as mouse hovering without the zoom app.

"Take this survey" DIVs destroy usability for everybody :(

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#53

Post by kls »

bphogan wrote: post #49
andrewf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This is an academic point for me right now - I'm building an app in Facebook, and Facebook requires Javascript.) It seems like your zoom software interacts badly with behaviour that's common on some websites. Disabling Javascript seems like a reasonable workaround, but not without cost. I'm curious - why are web developers the target of your aggravation, rather than the people who wrote your zoom software? It seems…

I am aggravated by the developers because developers are the ones who confuse interactions (clicks) with invitations to interact (hovers). When I move my mouse, my viewport moves. That's by design, as the mouse pointer can be placed near words so I can see it. Keeping the mouse pointer visible is important when you can't see it well. Now imagine I'm surfing as a blind user, and I follow a link from HN, and my screen…

Just a note on this, you are taking issue with Javascript when in fact the issue is bad UX design.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#54

Post by kls »

mirkules wrote: post #10
marknutter wrote: post #3

That's 2% I could do without, no problem.

Explain that to a potential investor. "We snubbed 2% of our potential user base because we were too lazy to make sure that our site degrades gracefully." From the article, that's _6 million_ of Yahoo!'s 300M+ user base. I really don't understand what's the big deal about making sure your site works without JS, it's just some extra work that you're going to have to do anyway later down the line (and it will be more co…

Explain that to a potential investor.

We snubbed 2% of our potential user base and reinvested the money we saved in increasing the conversion rate of the 98%. Further we are going to use some of that money to chase additional revenue streams. If we exploit all available revenue models and hit a wall with upping the conversion rate, we will look at creating a separate none JS version of the site with reduced functionality, so that the two distinctive development models are not intertwined therefore reducing out maintenance burden.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#55

Post by kls »

mike-cardwell wrote: post #28

If your website relies on JavaScript to work, then you're excluding people who can't use JavaScript. Disabled people with screen readers. If you don't cater for those people, put some money aside for lawyers.

This is a straw man argument that is not grounded in fact:

http://www.dojotoolkit.org/reference-guide/dijit-a11y-statem...

I have built many sites with the specific criteria that it work with JAWS. I do not use Server Side web frameworks and my UI logic is implemented entirely in JavaScript. I am an authority in the usability and accessibility field and am hired as such by many of the big boys. JavaScript has nothing to do with accessibility and in fact can be used to increase usability for the disabled. People confuse JavaScript with bad UX design that hinders accessibility.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#56

Post by araneae »

bphogan wrote: post #44

If you haven't got the experience, then yes, it's going to seem like two times the work. But I am a low vision user who disables JavaScript often because developers don't understand that jut because I stopped moving my mouse doesn't mean I want to see a popup definition of the word I hovered on which obscures my viewport. (I'm zoomed in now as I type this). I'm saddend (and a little angry) at the number of developers…

Speaking of webforms, how would you treat a webform that has a variable number of fields? The non-js way I've seen this treated is to have like 5 fields and then reload the page if they want more (i.e. multiple files uploads), but it seems like there's no non-icky way to do this sans JS.

I am open to suggestions :).

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#57

Post by bphogan »

kls wrote: post #53
bphogan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am aggravated by the developers because developers are the ones who confuse interactions (clicks) with invitations to interact (hovers). When I move my mouse, my viewport moves. That's by design, as the mouse pointer can be placed near words so I can see it. Keeping the mouse pointer visible is important when you can't see it well. Now imagine I'm surfing as a blind user, and I follow a link from HN, and my screen…

Just a note on this, you are taking issue with Javascript when in fact the issue is bad UX design.

No, I don't think I ever said JS was bad. I said I'm saddened by developers who use hovers, and by developers who think it's too hard to do non-JS versions of sites. I personally love using JS to improve the user experience. I think it's pretty damned cool because of the way I can use it to transform a very dull, cumbersome postback interface into something wonderful without nearly the effort that people claim it takes.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#58

Post by shaggy »

estel wrote: post #20
shaggy wrote: post #19

I'm a NoScript user and generally only whitelist JS on sites I use all the time and trust. I'm not overly paranoid about security, but the experience on the web with NoScript is far superior than without it in my opinion. What drives me absolutely insane is when a website is 100% useless unless JS is whitelisted. That instantly gets put on my list of sites to never ever go to again.

Doesn't that depend on what the website is trying to achieve? Clearly there are plenty of sites out there whose functionality is necessarily dependant on JS. As long as they make clear that this is the case and what the website is supposed to do, is it all that bad if a website becomes otherwise useless without JS?

Yes, it does depend on what the site is trying to achieve. I should have been more clear and said that I can't stand when I am brought to a blank browser (not even a "You need javascript enabled" message). I guess it's not so much that I'm anti-javascript as I am completely anti-stupid web design.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#59

Post by bphogan »

araneae wrote: post #56
bphogan wrote: post #44

If you haven't got the experience, then yes, it's going to seem like two times the work. But I am a low vision user who disables JavaScript often because developers don't understand that jut because I stopped moving my mouse doesn't mean I want to see a popup definition of the word I hovered on which obscures my viewport. (I'm zoomed in now as I type this). I'm saddend (and a little angry) at the number of developers…

Speaking of webforms, how would you treat a webform that has a variable number of fields? The non-js way I've seen this treated is to have like 5 fields and then reload the page if they want more (i.e. multiple files uploads), but it seems like there's no non-icky way to do this sans JS. I am open to suggestions :).

Recently, I had to implement that, and it came down to this: The multiple file upload functionality is an "icing" feature. We just set up the UI to upload one file at a time. Accessibility doesn't have to mean "it works the same". Reasonable alternatives are fine.

Re: How many users have JavaScript disabled?

#60

Post by kls »

bphogan wrote: post #57
kls wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a note on this, you are taking issue with Javascript when in fact the issue is bad UX design.

No, I don't think I ever said JS was bad. I said I'm saddened by developers who use hovers, and by developers who think it's too hard to do non-JS versions of sites. I personally love using JS to improve the user experience. I think it's pretty damned cool because of the way I can use it to transform a very dull, cumbersome postback interface into something wonderful without nearly the effort that people claim it tak…

Yeah I am sorry, I was posting in response to the grandparent and somehow ended up replying to your post. This was in reference to the low vision individual who was arguing that hovers mess up their screen reader. I would delete the post but it would leave your comment hanging. So I will leave it, but it was not directed at you.
Post reply on HN