From: Ann Barcomb Date: 17:17 on 13 Aug 2003 Subject: websites which require JavaScript I've only just joined the list and I would find it odd if this hasn't already been mentioned. But I hate JavaScript so much I need to say it, even if I'm redundant. JavaScript as an idea is not bad. It can be useful to do things like client-side checking of params to reduce bad requests to the server, or limiting choices based upon previous selections without reloading pages. But that's all it is good for--adding to the experience. Too many people mistake it for required functionality, forgetting the browsers that can't handle JavaScript and the people like myself, who find that 90% of all JavaScript is just crappy bells and whistles I don't want. I really despise sites which require JvaScript to simply view or navigate. There are the sites with onclick submits and no submit button for the form; the ones that display blank pages; and the ones that order you to enable JavaScript, and, if you do, show nothing that even uses JavaScript. It's even worse when the sites are ones you need to use, like the telephone directory (http://www.goudengids.nl) or the train schedule (http://www.ns.nl). It ought to be illegal for anything resembling a public service to do this. A while ago I wrote a form letter which I now mail to the worst offenders. I doubt they pay attention to my letter, given the pissy tone and the fact that I'm just one person, but it makes me feel a bit better. It would make me feel far better, however, if others would also complain, because then maybe they would listen. The letter is below. ------------------------ I am writing to express my disappointment with the redesign of your site, which has chosen to ignore one of the key accessibility guidelines recommended by W3C. I hope that this was done out of ignorance and you will consider it a priority to make your website accessible. I refer to guideline 6.3, which involves making content accessible to users without requiring scripting. This issue is rated at priority 1, meaning that a site which does not comply with this recommendation does not even qualify for the lowest accessibility rating (Conformance Level A) available. Priority 1 is defined as: "A Web content developer _must_ satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents." The web content accessibility guidelines can be perused at: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ Information on fixing the issue I have highlighted is available here: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#tech-scripts ------------------------
From: peter (Peter da Silva) Date: 17:37 on 13 Aug 2003 Subject: Re: websites which require JavaScript I rather like Javascript as a programming language, and I wish there was a nice fast standalone Javascript-shell with minimal startup costs that could be used instead of funky scripting languages like Perl or Python. But, yeh, the way its used in browsers is a crime.
From: Chris Nandor Date: 17:48 on 13 Aug 2003 Subject: Re: websites which require JavaScript At 11:37 -0500 2003.08.13, Peter da Silva wrote: >I rather like Javascript as a programming language, and I wish there was a >nice fast standalone Javascript-shell with minimal startup costs that >could be used instead of funky scripting languages like Perl or Python. If you use a Mac, there is an OSA version of JavaScript. FWIW.
From: Claes Jacobsson Date: 21:27 on 13 Aug 2003 Subject: Re: websites which require JavaScript There is a stand-alone JavaScript shell/interpreter called js which is built when you build SpiderMonkey (the JS engine used in mozilla etc). I think it does basic I/O. /Claes
Generated at 17:46 on 21 Sep 2006 by mariachi