Our records show that you have outstanding author rewards points. Please confirm your latest payment information and redeem your points balance via the Author Reward Store.
My main criteria if I visit a website is: Can I use it without JavaScript and Flash.
Well, you may think this is ancient, but it is _not_. A good website is alyways usable without JavaScript and Flash! Sure, this depends on the content, but 90% of all websites does not need JavaScript/Flash. Most websites simply use it because of some stupid advertising companies or because of some stupid 'web developers'.
(no, I do not want to talk about Macromedia/Adobe Flash, because this proprietary shit absolutely sucks!)
wowace.com = very good without JavaScript
curse.com = not usable without JavaScript/Flash
Why? Different target audience?
Please keep wowace.com usable without JavaScript/Flash! Thanks!
Curse.com's use of flash/javascript causes endless problems, which get ignored when reported on their site-specific forums. (I love the login page which, when it gets confused, does not show the username/password box. Apparently it's dynamically decided whether to show it... on the page whose only reason to exist is to let you f*cking log in.)
What is the reason not to allow Javascript, exactly ? Because if it's just a poor's man way of filtering ad, there are better solutions. Javascript is a tremendous addition to web development.
I completely disagree with your assertion that a good website should be usable without Javascript. I do think it is just a (bad) habit that people got that javascript was buggy, slow, and only use to provide ad. It's simply isn't just isn't true anymore (if it ever was).
While a good website should use javascript smartly to implement good navigational menus on a large website, I do agree with kunda that a good website should be usable without Javascript.
With the increasing numbers of mobile devices that can surf the internet, it is also important that a website should be also usable and navigable when viewed on smaller mobile devices which may not support javascript and or may be awkward because most handheld mobile devices do not have a "mouse pointer" for mouseover popup menus.
Mobile isn't much of an argument IMCO really. If you care about mobile users it's not too hard to take a moment to make a mobile css that restyles the site to work better no a mobile screen. Those devices have javascript anyway, you just need to make sure you're not doing anything "clever" with your javascript is all.
Websites shouldn't require JavaScript. And really the most require it just because of bad programming (not for something were JavaScript makes sense / improves the user-experience / is technically required, for example RIAs), like using JavaScript for normal links (what decreases the user-experience i.e. new-tab isn't possible).
In addition to the ads-problem, most of the browser-exploits require JavaScript to work. And every browser has unfixed but exploited bugs from time to time.
/edit: The fact that his forum(-software) kills line breaks if JavaScript is disabled is another example of bad programming.
I completely disagree with your assertion that a good website should be usable without Javascript. I do think it is just a (bad) habit that people got that javascript was buggy, slow, and only use to provide ad. It's simply isn't just isn't true anymore (if it ever was).
There are thousands of usability experts, accessibility experts, disabled web users, and web developers who would disagree with you, Jerry.
Can you name one feature that is used on WowAce.com, CurseForge.com, or Curse.com that is a necessary function of using the website (as opposed to a "convenience" feature like auto-completing search terms) that could not be accomplished without JavaScript?
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to type a username, type a password, and press a submit button to log into a website without JavaScript enabled? Forms, including text input boxes and submit buttons, are part of HTML - not JavaScript - and were developed long before JavaScript was around.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to click on a hyperlink without JavaScript enabled? Hyperlinks are arguably the very core of the World Wide Web, and were certainly well-established parts of HTML long before JavaScript was introduced.
There are many reasons why a user might not have JavaScript enabled.
For instance, someone browsing at work may not have control over their company's decision to disable JavaScript on all company computers; should they be prevented from using the site?
If someone is browsing on a mobile device that doesn't support JavaScript, should they be prevented from using the site?
If someone is unable to use a mouse (whether because they lack the necessary motor skills, or because they are browsing from a device that doesn't support a mouse), should they be prevented from using the site?
If someone is on a slow connection and has disabled JavaScript to help make sites load quicker, should they be prevented from using the site?
If someone is on an older machine and has disabled JavaScript because they have found that sites that use a lot of scripting slow down their machine, should they be prevented from using the site?
If someone is blind or partially sighted and browses using a screen reader, should they be prevented from using the site?
My grandmother has JavaScript disabled because she has trouble keeping track of stuff that moves around on the screen; should she be prevented from using the site?
For the overhwelming majority of websites, including this one, the answers to all of the above questions should be "no." The focus of most websites, including this one, is on the content of the website. What logical reason is there to prevent anyone from accessing the content, regardless of what hardware or software they are using to reach it? If you require some form of input to access the content (such as logging in) or allow some form of input in response to the content (such as leaving a comment or filing a bug report), you already have to validate and process it server-side, so what logical reason is there to prevent anyone from providing that input?
You seem to be aware that JavaScript has matured considerably since its early days, so you should also be aware that there is no longer any need for "obtrusve" JavaScript that creates obviously broken website features when scripting is disabled. Nearly everything can be done in a graceful way that enhances the page for users with JavaScript enabled, without degrading or breaking the page for users without.
For example, I deliberately disable JavaScript for www.wowace.com and www.curseforge.com, because most of the "convenience" features JavaScript is used for (expandable text boxes, collapsing link sections, etc) I find quite annoying. It's unreasonable to expect CurseForge or any other website to add toggles for their website's scripted features, so I feel this is a valid choice on my part. Do you think I should be unable to read and post on a forum, download or upload an addon, or file or respond to a bug report because I disable JavaScript? If so, why do you believe JavaScript should be a requirement for performing those actions?
Finally, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines clearly specify that pages should be accessible and usable without JavaScript. Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act also requires that any use of scripting be accessible; several major US retailers have been hit with class-action lawsuits in the last few years as a result of their websites being inaccessible.
While there are exceptions -- for instance, it would be silly to expect a website whose primary content is an realtime-interactive chat room or a Flash-based game to be usable and accessible without scripting or Flash -- there is generally no valid reason to require JavaScript for any basic function of any website. Most websites that aren't usable without JavaScript are that way simply because their designers didn't know how to write good JavaScript, or didn't think about the fact that not everyone uses Internet Explorer 7 on a desktop computer running Windows Vista SP2 with 4 GB of RAM and a 22-inch widescreen monitor and a mouse and keyboard, not because any part of them actually needs scripting.
Don't get me wrong; I think JavaScript is a great tool for making websites interactive, and even for making websites more usable. Realtime client-side validation of form input is great. Flyout menus for rarely-used navigation items are (generally) great. Drag-and-drop and shift-click-to-multiselect in GMail are great. WYSIWYG text input is (generally) great. Lightbox-style image overlays are neat. There are tons of things JavaScript can, and is used to, do that are awesome. However, almost none of them are actually necessary to perform the tasks that a website is primarily used for, and good websites understand that.
It should be possible to post on a forum without WYSIWYG input. It should be possible to access navigation without flyout menus. It should be possible to view images without a Lightbox-style overlay. It should be possible to submit a form without client-side validation; any client-side validation should always be re-validated by the server anyway for obvious security reasons. GMail, in all its interactive web-app glory, is usable without JavaScript.
There is simply no legitimate reason why WowAce/CurseForge/Curse, or 99.99999% of all other websites, should not be completely usable without JavaScript.
There are thousands of usability experts, accessibility experts, disabled web users, and web developers who would disagree with you, Jerry.
I don't see the relation between usability, accessibility and Javascript. Bad UI design is bad UI design, whether you achieve it using Javascript or without it is irrelevant.
Can you name one feature that is used on WowAce.com, CurseForge.com, or Curse.com that is a necessary function of using the website (as opposed to a "convenience" feature like auto-completing search terms) that could not be accomplished without JavaScript?
Theses sites still rely on the old concept of page load, which, by essence, can not make good use of what Javascript offers that makes it worthwhile. DOM/CSS manipulation combined with HTTPRequests offers the ability to use a web brower as a generic user interface platform. A perfect example of this new orientation are google web sites like google reader or google documents. Those are perfectly accessible, usable website that can not exist without javascript. I myself have been spending a lot of coding time on a internal web application that uses XML/XSLT, client-side javascript and JSON fragments for database I/O. The previous design (web page that are fully loaded) is going to die, there are a lot of reasons why it should.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to type a username, type a password, and press a submit button to log into a website without JavaScript enabled? Forms, including text input boxes and submit buttons, are part of HTML - not JavaScript - and were developed long before JavaScript was around.
Javascript is not, in my mind about filling forms. It can do it, but that's not it's only raison d'être, far from it.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to click on a hyperlink without JavaScript enabled? Hyperlinks are arguably the very core of the World Wide Web, and were certainly well-established parts of HTML long before JavaScript was introduced.
Again, bad design is bad design, with or without Javascript. But it is understandable that, in a javascript environment, where there is no more (or a lot less) page loads. Not all active elements on a page are going to be hyperref per say.
For instance, someone browsing at work may not have control over their company's decision to disable JavaScript on all company computers; should they be prevented from using the site?
The decision to disable Javascript is, in my opinion, something that as right now absolutely no rational ground. It does not matter who makes that decision, they should really think about that decision.
If someone is browsing on a mobile device that doesn't support JavaScript, should they be prevented from using the site?
This is not about disabling Javascript (and most of your post isn't either), it's about website support of system without Javascript. That is a server-side concern more than a user-side concern.
I'm not going to make an argument about all your other examples. They again are not about Javascript proper, but about artefact of either bad design, or historical. I'll just say about performance that Javascript can tremendously reduce server load (reducing lag) and reduce the amount of data transfered by offloading HTML rendering to the client, which would allow a much better user experience overall.
There are thousands of usability experts, accessibility experts, disabled web users, and web developers who would disagree with you, Jerry.
I don't see the relation between usability, accessibility and Javascript. Bad UI design is bad UI design, whether you achieve it using Javascript or without it is irrelevant.
Can you name one feature that is used on WowAce.com, CurseForge.com, or Curse.com that is a necessary function of using the website (as opposed to a "convenience" feature like auto-completing search terms) that could not be accomplished without JavaScript?
Theses sites still rely on the old concept of page load, which, by essence, can not make good use of what Javascript offers that makes it worthwhile. DOM/CSS manipulation combined with HTTPRequests offers the ability to use a web brower as a generic user interface platform. A perfect example of this new orientation are google web sites like google reader or google documents. Those are perfectly accessible, usable website that can not exist without javascript. I myself have been spending a lot of coding time on a internal web application that uses XML/XSLT, client-side javascript and JSON fragments for database I/O. The previous design (web page that are fully loaded) is going to die, there are a lot of reasons why it should.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to type a username, type a password, and press a submit button to log into a website without JavaScript enabled? Forms, including text input boxes and submit buttons, are part of HTML - not JavaScript - and were developed long before JavaScript was around.
Javascript is not, in my mind about filling forms. It can do it, but that's not it's only raison d'être, far from it.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to click on a hyperlink without JavaScript enabled? Hyperlinks are arguably the very core of the World Wide Web, and were certainly well-established parts of HTML long before JavaScript was introduced.
Again, bad design is bad design, with or without Javascript. But it is understandable that, in a javascript environment, where there is no more (or a lot less) page loads. Not all active elements on a page are going to be hyperref per say.
For instance, someone browsing at work may not have control over their company's decision to disable JavaScript on all company computers; should they be prevented from using the site?
The decision to disable Javascript is, in my opinion, something that as right now absolutely no rational ground. It does not matter who makes that decision, they should really think about that decision.
For example, I deliberately disable JavaScript for www.wowace.com and www.curseforge.com, because most of the "convenience" features JavaScript is used for (expandable text boxes, collapsing link sections, etc) I find quite annoying. It's unreasonable to expect CurseForge or any other website to add toggles for their website's scripted features, so I feel this is a valid choice on my part. Do you think I should be unable to read and post on a forum, download or upload an addon, or file or respond to a bug report because I disable JavaScript? If so, why do you believe JavaScript should be a requirement for performing those actions?
I understand that you disagree with the chosen solution of the web designers of curse/wowace/whatever not to allow access for pure scriptless client. But it's still going backwards, technology-wise, to disable Javascript. I'd like to add that one of the best option for user to customise their own experience of the web is greasemonkey (and User-Scripts for chrome), and it is Javascript based, and it allows user to override website design decision, so it's good for everyone that has usability issue right now.
Finally, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines clearly specify that pages should be accessible and usable without JavaScript. Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act also requires that any use of scripting be accessible; several major US retailers have been hit with class-action lawsuits in the last few years as a result of their websites being inaccessible.
I honestly couldn't care less about class-action suits in the US. But the fact of the matter is that it is still extremely dated concepts. You can (and should) request accessibility, readability, usability, from websites. But you can't restrict their use of technology.
Basically, we are not advocating the same thing. I'm saying "users don't need to disable javascript". You're saying "Website should not require javascript". While related, these are different position. I do not completely disagree with you right now, in the sense that the majority of website still rely on a request based model and only use Javascript for superfluous eye-candy that should remain optional. But this model is going to die and the next one requires Javascript (for good reasons).
This is not about disabling Javascript (and most of your post isn't either), it's about website support of system without Javascript. That is a server-side concern more than a user-side concern.
What's the difference between a system without JavaScript by design or technological constraints, and a system without JavaScript by user choice?
Theses sites still rely on the old concept of page load, which, by essence, can not make good use of what Javascript offers that makes it worthwhile. DOM/CSS manipulation combined with HTTPRequests offers the ability to use a web brower as a generic user interface platform.
I absolutely despise websites that abolish traditional page loading in favor of AJAX-style scripting. The inability to use basic browser functions such as "back" is extremely irritating. It's also fairly irritating when sites silently update themselves without a page load. If I'm not actively watching the page for updates, it's a hassle to try to figure out what changed; if I wanted to retreive new content from the server, I would have used my browser's "reload" function. I hate Lightbox-style image overlays. I can't use the expected "back" or "close tab/window" functions to return to the image I clicked on the link from; I have to figure out some special method of closing the overlay that's specific to the script being used, whether it's clicking outside of the overlay, clicking an "X" graphic, or pressing the Esc key on my keyboard.
Maybe I'm just hidebound, but I like my operating system and my web browser. I don't like websites that try to be their own standalone operating system and application, and completely ignore the operating system and web browser that I have chosen to use to access them.
The decision to disable Javascript is, in my opinion, something that as right now absolutely no rational ground. It does not matter who makes that decision, they should really think about that decision.
Easy for you to say, but meaningless in the current discussion. Regardless of the reason behind it, the fact remains, and will continue to remain for the forseeable future, that there are several distinct classes of people who do have JavaScript disabled and do not reasonably have the choice to enable it, no matter how much they "think about" it.
Furthermore, you failed to address the issue of users with disabilities who use assistive technologies which are not compatible with JavaScript. Much of the functionality provided by JavaScript simply has no relevance to a screen reader or a Braille tablet, for example. Do you think that the future of the web should exclude blind people?
It's not about restricting anyone's use of technology. It's about ensuring open access to content to everyone, regardless of what hardware or software they use to access it. I'm not arguing that JavaScript can enhance the web in many ways. I'm not arguing that no websites should be functional without JavaScript. I am arguing that website designers should think long and hard before prevent users without JavaScript from acecssing their website.
This thread is primarily about Curse, CurseForge, and WowAce, and there is absolutely nothing on any of these websites that should prevent users without JavaScript from accessing them. They are not "web apps" like Google Documents. They are not realtime-interactive games. The primary functions of these sites are to (a) upload and download Lua code and other files to be read by the World of Warcraft game client, (b) input and retrieve text and images for the purpose of describing how those files are used, (c) input and retreive text, images, and files for the purpose of discussing the functionality of those files, and (d) input and retreive text, images, and files for the purpose of discussion on a variety of topics here on the forum. The HTTP protocol, and HTML standards, have provided ways to accomplish all of the above that have been universally usable and accessible for upward of 20 years. Any scripted implementation of these functions is necessarily slower and less accessible than pure HTML/HTTP, and would not significantly add to or improve the end-user functionality. Do you truly believe that requiring JavaScript would be an improvement?
I'd like to add that one of the best option for user to customise their own experience of the web is greasemonkey (and User-Scripts for chrome), and it is Javascript based, and it allows user to override website design decision, so it's good for everyone that has usability issue right now.
Greasemonkey is indeed an option. However, I strongly disagree that is the best option, or that it is (or should be) the only option. Why should I, or anyone else, have to spend time writing new JavaScript to deal with the specific scripting on individual sites? How is is this a better solution than simply disabling those sites' ability to run their own scripting?
Finally, I'll point to Wowhead. It's a great site, and they've used JavaScript very well to provide a smooth overall experience with many convenient little features. However, they completely prevent access to the site if JavaScript is disabled, and this makes no sense to me. The primary purpose of Wowhead is to provide data; I can browse static categories of data, or I can search for specific data by providing criteria. HTTP and HTML offer simple ways of accomplishing both tasks. Why, then, does Wowhead refuse to let me use the site without JavaScript? I fully accept that without JavaScript, I will not get auto-completion in the search field, inline resorting of tabular data, custom tooltips, or any of the other nifty things they use JavaScript to do. The only reason to prevent any use of the site without JavaScript is laziness, pure and simple.
If you honestly think we're talking about different things, give me an example of a site you think is truly justified in requiring JavaScript. What does it do that cannot be done without JavaScript?
The inability to use basic browser functions such as "back" is extremely irritating. [...] Furthermore, you failed to address the issue of users with disabilities who use assistive technologies which are not compatible with JavaScript. The vast majority of functionality provided by JavaScript simply has no relevance to a screen reader or a Braille tablet, for example. Do you think that the future of the web should exclude blind people?
Javascript enables runtime modification of the DOM. The DOM has to be rendered specifically for people with disabilities.There is no conflict, there's possibly an absence of current renderer that work well with DOM that is not static. Obviously some special care needs to be taken to provide alternate content for disabled people (like alt attributes for images). But this not inherently an issue with Javascript. Also quite obvious, a purely dynamic DOM content will have trouble to adapt itself to a slower rendering method (like aural rendering), but that's the same issue that blind people have with movies. Movies are not made for blind people. That doesn't mean that movies shouldn't exist.
The HTTP protocol, and HTML standards, have provided ways to accomplish all of the above that have been universally usable and accessible for upward of 20 years.
This argument doesn't hold. People have walked fine for thousand of years, why do you need a car ?
Any scripted implementation of these functions is necessarily slower and less accessible than pure HTML/HTTP, and would not significantly add to or improve the end-user functionality. Do you truly believe that requiring JavaScript would be an improvement?
I disagree with "necessarily slower" in that sentence. It doesn't have to be slower, how can you say that it has to be slower
Why should I, or anyone else, have to spend time writing new JavaScript to deal with the specific scripting on individual sites? How is is this a better solution than simply disabling those sites' ability to run their own scripting?
Hm. Seriously ? I'm not going to keep arguing with you, you have no rational basis for your hate of Javascript. What is the best improvement that the world of warcraft client has introduced to MMO ? Well, that could be UI addons, scripted additions to the user interface that people can use any way they which to make the user interface just like they like it, because every one is different and it's GOOD that people can customize the way the interact with the game. Don't you agree ? And still you don't see how that same argument can be said about web sites ?
Why, then, does Wowhead refuse to let me use the site without JavaScript?
Probably because you're asking them to do (and the maintain) two completely different web sites instead of one. wowhead uses javascript quite well. The send their data in javascript form, the rendering into HTML DOM is done client-side. This allow the site to send a lot less data, which makes the service cost a lot less.
If you honestly think we're talking about different things, give me an example of a site you think is truly justified in requiring JavaScript. What does it do that can't be done without JavaScript?
Also quite obvious, a purely dynamic DOM content will have trouble to adapt itself to a slower rendering method (like aural rendering), but that's the same issue that blind people have with movies. Movies are not made for blind people. That doesn't mean that movies shouldn't exist.
The web wasn't made for blind people, either. Does you think it's not important that blind people can access web content? There is a fundamental difference between a movie and a website. A movie is intrinsically bound to a visual medium. A website whose primary focus is on textual content is not.
This argument doesn't hold. People have walked fine for thousand of years, why do you need a car?
On the contrary, you just affirmed my argument. Cars enable people to travel much faster than it is possible to walk (or run); in this regard, cars are an enormous improvement over walking. Shaving a few milliseconds off the delivery time of web content by using AJAX-style scripting instead of a traditional page load is an improvement only in the most literal sense.
I disagree with "necessarily slower" in that sentence. It doesn't have to be slower, how can you say that it has to be slower
From a technological standpoint, I can say that because in every single web browser that exists today, or has existed for the last twenty years, running a script to render or manipulate dynamic content is slower than rendering static HTML. This may change in the future, but is true in the present.
From a user standpoint, I can say that because having to navigate through a website to return to a previous location is slower than simply clicking the button assigned to my browser's "back" function. Regardless of what technological advances are made in the future, this will never change as long as dynamically scripted websites do not obey standard browser controls.
you have no rational basis for your hate of Javascript.
I have no idea why you think I hate JavaScript. I don't, and I haven't said anything to that effect. In fact, in each of my posts I have specifically pointed out my belief JavaScript is indeed a useful tool to enhance the web.
What is the best improvement that the world of warcraft client has introduced to MMO ? Well, that could be UI addons, scripted additions to the user interface that people can use any way they which to make the user interface just like they like it, because every one is different and it's GOOD that people can customize the way the interact with the game. Don't you agree ? And still you don't see how that same argument can be said about web sites ?
Installing an addon to modify the World of Warcraft UI is the same as installing an addon to modify my web browser. When I use a WoW addon, I am indeed using it to customize the way I interact with the game. When I use a website, though, what exactly am I customizing my interaction with? The Internet itself? Perhaps in a strictly literal sense this is true, but I doubt you will find anyone who considers "purchasing a book from Amazon.com" to be a way of "customzing interaction with the Internet".
And that's a perfect example of the kind of website I've stated quite clearly, several times, should not be expected to function without scripting.
Anyway, this thread is about concerns over Curse/WowAce requiring JavaScript. The purpose of this site is to host addons for WoW. There is nothing in the viewing/submitting of text or images (descriptions, comments, bug reports, forum posts) or in the uploading/downloading of binary files (addons) that can be meaningfully improved by using JavaScript, or that cannot be accomplished with reasonable parity without JavaScript.
By holding up Google Maps as your champion of the JavaScript cause, you're missing the point. The purpose of Google Maps is to display interactive maps. That cannot be accomplished with reasonable parity without JavaScript; while it would be technically possible to design an interactive map system that depended solely on static HTML, HTTP requests, and full page loads, the experience would be very different, and (from most points of view) much poorer. The same cannot be said of any features WowAce/Curse provides.
I'm sorry Phanx, but you're only using fallacies and refuting arguments without proper reason. You say "please give me an example website", and when I do so you reply "but not that one, because I said countless times that that one doesn't count. Give me another example that is in this list that I've made up.". "I accept car because their advantage NOW is obvious". Remember that when car where introduced, they got serious competitions from horses and trains, the speed argument was not that big and probably a lot of people where arguing that they had no interesting feature.
Websites are not necessarily about rendering textual content. The Web, as a platform, is a lot richer than that. In the early days, video-games also used to be text based (zork/adventure cave). Look at what they are now. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be any text-based game/website in the future (and I'm not saying that we should reject disabilities), but the platform is evolving to something else. That evolution is rooted on the use of Javascript as an access to client-side processing and that refusing Javascript as a block is already an obsolete POV that's only going to get more obsolete.
Your argument about rendering speed is also untrue. Webkit renders updates to DOM content extremely fast. Page loads requires quite obviously a full page of content to be processed each time, whereas DOM updates can be limited to the only portion of the page that needs it, making it much faster.
Hmm I mainly agree with Phanx, but some additions or clarifications about my first post:
I do not think JavaScript is bad. Hey, JavaScript/ECMAScript is/was The Cool Web Thing! And hey, it is the future for every interactive web application ('Rock Creek' or any other experimental chip development from any(!) major microchip producing company shows the direction).
But, the good, cool websites does not NEED JavaScript/Flash or other shit! They does not need it to access there content!!! The content of a website is the main reason someone is looking at it. The JavaScript/Flash part is and should be The Gimmick/The additional feature/The better navi/The whatever...but should never be required to access the main content! Any serious websites knows that! and most serious websites follow this simple rule because of a simple fact: more visitors!
And Jerry, you are absoultely wrong if you think a JavaScript-based website lowers serverload. This is not true for nearly all websites that are available today. Okay, in it's essence you are right! But do you know what this means? (...if bandwidth cost is low and hardware/maintenance cost is relatively high - which is the case currently and I bet this will not change...) In it's end it means: the cost to view a website is transferred to the viewer! CPU power/Hardware/Time...all this costs real money, mainly energy! (and money for hardware)...all this costs are transferred to the viewer! The enduser/costumer! Not to the one who wants to get a visitor/customer! - with no benefit for the visitor/customer, no nothing. (well, that's a nice argument, for or against it...isn't it?...but)
There is one main thing every website is trying to achieve: Accessibility!!!
The main goal for every website is to get more visitors or better: everyone should be able to view it. And you do NOT achieve this by technically restricting a website. HTML is a wonderful invention. Simple, pure HTML is the only script language you need to make a good website! Sure, it all depends on the content, but unless you need interactive elements, HTML (and CSS) is all you need.
To say it again: I am not against JavaScript. But I hate the way stupid companies/webdevelopers use it. It's a real shame. Go to a random website and look at the JavaScript code: they copy a 20KB script and use one function from that shit! The web is full of stupid webdevelopers who use stupid 'IDE-like' shit with stupid pre-defined JavaShit code...one click and you have that full-featured-web-2.0 shitloaded website. Funny: geocities was the ugly guy in the beginning...nowadays all that so-called web-2.0 fukker sites are sooo sooo uglybad...haha (ohhh I really hate Tim OâReilly for that stupid web-2.0 marketing gag, years after user-generated-content websites was really something new)
And, please do not use 'google' as a good example for anything. google is bad! Microsoft was the evil one in the pre-internet-age (hmm well let's say pre-google-age), google is it now! Pseudo-OpenSource doesn't make a company a good one! googles' OpenSource-Cloak mean: give me all! There is only one thing google made really good: there search engine webdesign (repect! ohh well simple pure HTML). Do you ever tried to use an other google product without JavaScript? No? Try! And think twice, why they use JavaScript (and no I do not mean the products you obviously need a client-side scripting language like javascript).
: A website that does not require interactive elements for main content should always be usable without JavaScript/Flash!
Please keep wowace.com usable without JavaScript/Flash. Thanks!
The JavaScript/Flash part is and should be The Gimmick/The additional feature/The better navi/The whatever...but should never be required to access the main content! Any serious websites knows that!
And Jerry, you are absoultely wrong if you think a JavaScript-based website lowers serverload. This is not true for nearly all websites that are available today.
Please provide any kind of proof about that. It stands to reason that providing less data and performing less runtime processing (i.e. not parsing PHP scripts to render HTML content) should lower website serverload. Any argument saying the opposite would need some serious argumentation.
the cost to view a website is transferred to the viewer! CPU power/Hardware/Time...all this costs real money, mainly energy!
Yes, in extenso, it means it costs less to provide content over the web too, which means is more accessible as a platform too. So, as a user, you get more content.
But I hate the way stupid companies/webdevelopers use it. It's a real shame. Go to a random website and look at the JavaScript code: they copy a 20KB script and use one function from that shit!
Don't blame the tool if the user is not using it correctly. Advocate better use of the tool.
And, please do not use 'google' as a good example for anything. google is bad! Microsoft was the evil one in the pre-internet-age (hmm well let's say pre-google-age), google is it now! Pseudo-OpenSource doesn't make a company a good one! googles' OpenSource-Cloak mean: give me all! There is only one thing google made really good: there search engine webdesign (repect! ohh well simple pure HTML). Do you ever tried to use an other google product without JavaScript? No? Try! And think twice, why they use JavaScript (and no I do not mean the products you obviously need a client-side scripting language like javascript).
I'm sorry, but in what exactly way google is bad exactly, because you didn't explain it at all. Why google use javascript so much ? I would say because that is the way to go. I would say because that is the smart thing to do. Google may have shady or even wrong intents, I can not tell, but they sure as hell do a very good job at providing tools, websites, open source projects and funds that are of a very good quality. Did you know that Google donated money to several open source projects, one of them being LuaJIT ? I find it hard to explain how that is bad.
WoW.. read the whole thread, and I want the 30mins of my life back.
Old people clinging to Old Ways for no better reason than simple contempt for something new that they don't see as being needed for themselves.
There are some valid points made in this thread, none of them having to do with JS or Flash but simply on inconsistent design schemes ("pop up to view" vs "page load and back button"). To me it sounds like bitching and moaning about the city putting in concrete and asphalt vs having dirt roads.
What your asking for is like asking to remove cars from the general public's use because they can kill people. When the Fact is that it's not the cars killing people its the stupid drivers making mistakes.
I can only assume that you want a productive resolution to the problem here, because you posted. So post something productive such as a change to the sites setup, layout, and functionality. Asking a small team of Web Developers to think of every single nook-and-cranny element that could irritate a visitor to go and "fix" is a sign of stupidity on your part. Most of you are addon authors and like all things that are developed, feed back is required for improvement of any kind. Developers can only think of so many things when considering the size of a project.
Asking them (If we had a WebDev person) to redesign the site so that you can have your backwards ways of disabling JS is obscene.
Calling me stupid and backwards is hardly an appropriate response to my having expressed an opinion that differs from your own.
I clearly stated several times that I do not "hate" or feel "contempt" for JavaScript, or anything else being discussed in this thread. I have also never said anything to the effect that JavaScript should never be used, or to the effect that I think the Curse developers (or any other website's developers) should redesign the site to accomodate my personal wishes.
If you are going to ignore what I actually say, and insult me based on things that I do not believe and certainly have not said, then there is no reason for me to continue participating in this discussion. Thanks for your time.
-*My apologies, sometimes anger and hate come out in text posting where there is just simply a strong and vocal opinion.
@ Phanx
I actually wasn't addressing you at all (thank you for ignoring that part of my post). You have a tendency to actually apply logic and reason to a topic of interest, tho I must wonder about this one. Jerry makes some valid points that you haven't answered yet.
---------
Im actually a lot more angry at this topic, but will not share it. Sharing would provide nothing productive.
Well, I'm probably throwing myself to the wolves here, but specifically regarding the "blind" card... I've seen this one thrown around a lot. A LOT. The fact is, there are certain sites where I'd SERIOUSLY have to question if a blind person would ever care in the slightest. For instance: if you're blind, you're probably not playing WoW, and probably don't really give a shit if a site dedicated to WoW addons is blind-accessible. Sure, there's a lot of content out there that blind people probably DO care about, and should be able to access in a way that suits them, but when it comes to things like video games, I kind of doubt it since they're lacking the required "visual" in order to enjoy them in the first place.
I love the login page which, when it gets confused, does not show the username/password box. Apparently it's dynamically decided whether to show it... on the page whose only reason to exist is to let you f*cking log in.)
So yeah. Being able to go to the login page and actually get the new-age javascriptajaxDOMwhateverthefuck it is to decide that "oh HEY, we should present the text fields allowing them to login" would be good. Whether that means you make the dynamic coding smarter ("they've manually clicked the login link. Should we ignore whatever cookies might be present and display the login box?" hint: the answer is YES), or go all retro and ancient and backwards and remove the needlessly dynamic code elements from a page with a static name and static purpose, is up to the designers. I can only point out that currently, they're doing it wrong.
If my words are a little too sarcastic for whomever it was that designed the current failure of a page, well, they've earned it. Whoever thought that it would be acceptable for [FONT="Courier New"]http://wow.curse.com/login.aspx[/FONT] to even be capable of choosing to not display the text fields has failed in their job. Ignoring repeated bug reports only means they've earned public contempt as well.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWell, you may think this is ancient, but it is _not_. A good website is alyways usable without JavaScript and Flash! Sure, this depends on the content, but 90% of all websites does not need JavaScript/Flash. Most websites simply use it because of some stupid advertising companies or because of some stupid 'web developers'.
(no, I do not want to talk about Macromedia/Adobe Flash, because this proprietary shit absolutely sucks!)
wowace.com = very good without JavaScript
curse.com = not usable without JavaScript/Flash
Why? Different target audience?
Please keep wowace.com usable without JavaScript/Flash! Thanks!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumCurse.com's use of flash/javascript causes endless problems, which get ignored when reported on their site-specific forums. (I love the login page which, when it gets confused, does not show the username/password box. Apparently it's dynamically decided whether to show it... on the page whose only reason to exist is to let you f*cking log in.)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI completely disagree with your assertion that a good website should be usable without Javascript. I do think it is just a (bad) habit that people got that javascript was buggy, slow, and only use to provide ad. It's simply isn't just isn't true anymore (if it ever was).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWith the increasing numbers of mobile devices that can surf the internet, it is also important that a website should be also usable and navigable when viewed on smaller mobile devices which may not support javascript and or may be awkward because most handheld mobile devices do not have a "mouse pointer" for mouseover popup menus.
In addition to the ads-problem, most of the browser-exploits require JavaScript to work. And every browser has unfixed but exploited bugs from time to time.
/edit: The fact that his forum(-software) kills line breaks if JavaScript is disabled is another example of bad programming.
There are thousands of usability experts, accessibility experts, disabled web users, and web developers who would disagree with you, Jerry.
Can you name one feature that is used on WowAce.com, CurseForge.com, or Curse.com that is a necessary function of using the website (as opposed to a "convenience" feature like auto-completing search terms) that could not be accomplished without JavaScript?
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to type a username, type a password, and press a submit button to log into a website without JavaScript enabled? Forms, including text input boxes and submit buttons, are part of HTML - not JavaScript - and were developed long before JavaScript was around.
Can you give any reason at all why someone should be unable to click on a hyperlink without JavaScript enabled? Hyperlinks are arguably the very core of the World Wide Web, and were certainly well-established parts of HTML long before JavaScript was introduced.
There are many reasons why a user might not have JavaScript enabled.
For the overhwelming majority of websites, including this one, the answers to all of the above questions should be "no." The focus of most websites, including this one, is on the content of the website. What logical reason is there to prevent anyone from accessing the content, regardless of what hardware or software they are using to reach it? If you require some form of input to access the content (such as logging in) or allow some form of input in response to the content (such as leaving a comment or filing a bug report), you already have to validate and process it server-side, so what logical reason is there to prevent anyone from providing that input?
You seem to be aware that JavaScript has matured considerably since its early days, so you should also be aware that there is no longer any need for "obtrusve" JavaScript that creates obviously broken website features when scripting is disabled. Nearly everything can be done in a graceful way that enhances the page for users with JavaScript enabled, without degrading or breaking the page for users without.
For example, I deliberately disable JavaScript for www.wowace.com and www.curseforge.com, because most of the "convenience" features JavaScript is used for (expandable text boxes, collapsing link sections, etc) I find quite annoying. It's unreasonable to expect CurseForge or any other website to add toggles for their website's scripted features, so I feel this is a valid choice on my part. Do you think I should be unable to read and post on a forum, download or upload an addon, or file or respond to a bug report because I disable JavaScript? If so, why do you believe JavaScript should be a requirement for performing those actions?
Finally, the W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines clearly specify that pages should be accessible and usable without JavaScript. Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act also requires that any use of scripting be accessible; several major US retailers have been hit with class-action lawsuits in the last few years as a result of their websites being inaccessible.
While there are exceptions -- for instance, it would be silly to expect a website whose primary content is an realtime-interactive chat room or a Flash-based game to be usable and accessible without scripting or Flash -- there is generally no valid reason to require JavaScript for any basic function of any website. Most websites that aren't usable without JavaScript are that way simply because their designers didn't know how to write good JavaScript, or didn't think about the fact that not everyone uses Internet Explorer 7 on a desktop computer running Windows Vista SP2 with 4 GB of RAM and a 22-inch widescreen monitor and a mouse and keyboard, not because any part of them actually needs scripting.
Don't get me wrong; I think JavaScript is a great tool for making websites interactive, and even for making websites more usable. Realtime client-side validation of form input is great. Flyout menus for rarely-used navigation items are (generally) great. Drag-and-drop and shift-click-to-multiselect in GMail are great. WYSIWYG text input is (generally) great. Lightbox-style image overlays are neat. There are tons of things JavaScript can, and is used to, do that are awesome. However, almost none of them are actually necessary to perform the tasks that a website is primarily used for, and good websites understand that.
It should be possible to post on a forum without WYSIWYG input. It should be possible to access navigation without flyout menus. It should be possible to view images without a Lightbox-style overlay. It should be possible to submit a form without client-side validation; any client-side validation should always be re-validated by the server anyway for obvious security reasons. GMail, in all its interactive web-app glory, is usable without JavaScript.
There is simply no legitimate reason why WowAce/CurseForge/Curse, or 99.99999% of all other websites, should not be completely usable without JavaScript.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI don't see the relation between usability, accessibility and Javascript. Bad UI design is bad UI design, whether you achieve it using Javascript or without it is irrelevant.
Theses sites still rely on the old concept of page load, which, by essence, can not make good use of what Javascript offers that makes it worthwhile. DOM/CSS manipulation combined with HTTPRequests offers the ability to use a web brower as a generic user interface platform. A perfect example of this new orientation are google web sites like google reader or google documents. Those are perfectly accessible, usable website that can not exist without javascript. I myself have been spending a lot of coding time on a internal web application that uses XML/XSLT, client-side javascript and JSON fragments for database I/O. The previous design (web page that are fully loaded) is going to die, there are a lot of reasons why it should.
Javascript is not, in my mind about filling forms. It can do it, but that's not it's only raison d'être, far from it.
Again, bad design is bad design, with or without Javascript. But it is understandable that, in a javascript environment, where there is no more (or a lot less) page loads. Not all active elements on a page are going to be hyperref per say.
The decision to disable Javascript is, in my opinion, something that as right now absolutely no rational ground. It does not matter who makes that decision, they should really think about that decision.
This is not about disabling Javascript (and most of your post isn't either), it's about website support of system without Javascript. That is a server-side concern more than a user-side concern.
I'm not going to make an argument about all your other examples. They again are not about Javascript proper, but about artefact of either bad design, or historical. I'll just say about performance that Javascript can tremendously reduce server load (reducing lag) and reduce the amount of data transfered by offloading HTML rendering to the client, which would allow a much better user experience overall.
I don't see the relation between usability, accessibility and Javascript. Bad UI design is bad UI design, whether you achieve it using Javascript or without it is irrelevant.
Theses sites still rely on the old concept of page load, which, by essence, can not make good use of what Javascript offers that makes it worthwhile. DOM/CSS manipulation combined with HTTPRequests offers the ability to use a web brower as a generic user interface platform. A perfect example of this new orientation are google web sites like google reader or google documents. Those are perfectly accessible, usable website that can not exist without javascript. I myself have been spending a lot of coding time on a internal web application that uses XML/XSLT, client-side javascript and JSON fragments for database I/O. The previous design (web page that are fully loaded) is going to die, there are a lot of reasons why it should.
Javascript is not, in my mind about filling forms. It can do it, but that's not it's only raison d'être, far from it.
Again, bad design is bad design, with or without Javascript. But it is understandable that, in a javascript environment, where there is no more (or a lot less) page loads. Not all active elements on a page are going to be hyperref per say.
The decision to disable Javascript is, in my opinion, something that as right now absolutely no rational ground. It does not matter who makes that decision, they should really think about that decision.
I understand that you disagree with the chosen solution of the web designers of curse/wowace/whatever not to allow access for pure scriptless client. But it's still going backwards, technology-wise, to disable Javascript. I'd like to add that one of the best option for user to customise their own experience of the web is greasemonkey (and User-Scripts for chrome), and it is Javascript based, and it allows user to override website design decision, so it's good for everyone that has usability issue right now.
I honestly couldn't care less about class-action suits in the US. But the fact of the matter is that it is still extremely dated concepts. You can (and should) request accessibility, readability, usability, from websites. But you can't restrict their use of technology.
Basically, we are not advocating the same thing. I'm saying "users don't need to disable javascript". You're saying "Website should not require javascript". While related, these are different position. I do not completely disagree with you right now, in the sense that the majority of website still rely on a request based model and only use Javascript for superfluous eye-candy that should remain optional. But this model is going to die and the next one requires Javascript (for good reasons).
What's the difference between a system without JavaScript by design or technological constraints, and a system without JavaScript by user choice?
I absolutely despise websites that abolish traditional page loading in favor of AJAX-style scripting. The inability to use basic browser functions such as "back" is extremely irritating. It's also fairly irritating when sites silently update themselves without a page load. If I'm not actively watching the page for updates, it's a hassle to try to figure out what changed; if I wanted to retreive new content from the server, I would have used my browser's "reload" function. I hate Lightbox-style image overlays. I can't use the expected "back" or "close tab/window" functions to return to the image I clicked on the link from; I have to figure out some special method of closing the overlay that's specific to the script being used, whether it's clicking outside of the overlay, clicking an "X" graphic, or pressing the Esc key on my keyboard.
Maybe I'm just hidebound, but I like my operating system and my web browser. I don't like websites that try to be their own standalone operating system and application, and completely ignore the operating system and web browser that I have chosen to use to access them.
Easy for you to say, but meaningless in the current discussion. Regardless of the reason behind it, the fact remains, and will continue to remain for the forseeable future, that there are several distinct classes of people who do have JavaScript disabled and do not reasonably have the choice to enable it, no matter how much they "think about" it.
Furthermore, you failed to address the issue of users with disabilities who use assistive technologies which are not compatible with JavaScript. Much of the functionality provided by JavaScript simply has no relevance to a screen reader or a Braille tablet, for example. Do you think that the future of the web should exclude blind people?
It's not about restricting anyone's use of technology. It's about ensuring open access to content to everyone, regardless of what hardware or software they use to access it. I'm not arguing that JavaScript can enhance the web in many ways. I'm not arguing that no websites should be functional without JavaScript. I am arguing that website designers should think long and hard before prevent users without JavaScript from acecssing their website.
This thread is primarily about Curse, CurseForge, and WowAce, and there is absolutely nothing on any of these websites that should prevent users without JavaScript from accessing them. They are not "web apps" like Google Documents. They are not realtime-interactive games. The primary functions of these sites are to (a) upload and download Lua code and other files to be read by the World of Warcraft game client, (b) input and retrieve text and images for the purpose of describing how those files are used, (c) input and retreive text, images, and files for the purpose of discussing the functionality of those files, and (d) input and retreive text, images, and files for the purpose of discussion on a variety of topics here on the forum. The HTTP protocol, and HTML standards, have provided ways to accomplish all of the above that have been universally usable and accessible for upward of 20 years. Any scripted implementation of these functions is necessarily slower and less accessible than pure HTML/HTTP, and would not significantly add to or improve the end-user functionality. Do you truly believe that requiring JavaScript would be an improvement?
Greasemonkey is indeed an option. However, I strongly disagree that is the best option, or that it is (or should be) the only option. Why should I, or anyone else, have to spend time writing new JavaScript to deal with the specific scripting on individual sites? How is is this a better solution than simply disabling those sites' ability to run their own scripting?
Finally, I'll point to Wowhead. It's a great site, and they've used JavaScript very well to provide a smooth overall experience with many convenient little features. However, they completely prevent access to the site if JavaScript is disabled, and this makes no sense to me. The primary purpose of Wowhead is to provide data; I can browse static categories of data, or I can search for specific data by providing criteria. HTTP and HTML offer simple ways of accomplishing both tasks. Why, then, does Wowhead refuse to let me use the site without JavaScript? I fully accept that without JavaScript, I will not get auto-completion in the search field, inline resorting of tabular data, custom tooltips, or any of the other nifty things they use JavaScript to do. The only reason to prevent any use of the site without JavaScript is laziness, pure and simple.
If you honestly think we're talking about different things, give me an example of a site you think is truly justified in requiring JavaScript. What does it do that cannot be done without JavaScript?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumJavascript enables runtime modification of the DOM. The DOM has to be rendered specifically for people with disabilities.There is no conflict, there's possibly an absence of current renderer that work well with DOM that is not static. Obviously some special care needs to be taken to provide alternate content for disabled people (like alt attributes for images). But this not inherently an issue with Javascript. Also quite obvious, a purely dynamic DOM content will have trouble to adapt itself to a slower rendering method (like aural rendering), but that's the same issue that blind people have with movies. Movies are not made for blind people. That doesn't mean that movies shouldn't exist.
This argument doesn't hold. People have walked fine for thousand of years, why do you need a car ?
I disagree with "necessarily slower" in that sentence. It doesn't have to be slower, how can you say that it has to be slower
Hm. Seriously ? I'm not going to keep arguing with you, you have no rational basis for your hate of Javascript. What is the best improvement that the world of warcraft client has introduced to MMO ? Well, that could be UI addons, scripted additions to the user interface that people can use any way they which to make the user interface just like they like it, because every one is different and it's GOOD that people can customize the way the interact with the game. Don't you agree ? And still you don't see how that same argument can be said about web sites ?
Probably because you're asking them to do (and the maintain) two completely different web sites instead of one. wowhead uses javascript quite well. The send their data in javascript form, the rendering into HTML DOM is done client-side. This allow the site to send a lot less data, which makes the service cost a lot less.
Google map.
The web wasn't made for blind people, either. Does you think it's not important that blind people can access web content? There is a fundamental difference between a movie and a website. A movie is intrinsically bound to a visual medium. A website whose primary focus is on textual content is not.
On the contrary, you just affirmed my argument. Cars enable people to travel much faster than it is possible to walk (or run); in this regard, cars are an enormous improvement over walking. Shaving a few milliseconds off the delivery time of web content by using AJAX-style scripting instead of a traditional page load is an improvement only in the most literal sense.
From a technological standpoint, I can say that because in every single web browser that exists today, or has existed for the last twenty years, running a script to render or manipulate dynamic content is slower than rendering static HTML. This may change in the future, but is true in the present.
From a user standpoint, I can say that because having to navigate through a website to return to a previous location is slower than simply clicking the button assigned to my browser's "back" function. Regardless of what technological advances are made in the future, this will never change as long as dynamically scripted websites do not obey standard browser controls.
I have no idea why you think I hate JavaScript. I don't, and I haven't said anything to that effect. In fact, in each of my posts I have specifically pointed out my belief JavaScript is indeed a useful tool to enhance the web.
Installing an addon to modify the World of Warcraft UI is the same as installing an addon to modify my web browser. When I use a WoW addon, I am indeed using it to customize the way I interact with the game. When I use a website, though, what exactly am I customizing my interaction with? The Internet itself? Perhaps in a strictly literal sense this is true, but I doubt you will find anyone who considers "purchasing a book from Amazon.com" to be a way of "customzing interaction with the Internet".
And that's a perfect example of the kind of website I've stated quite clearly, several times, should not be expected to function without scripting.
Anyway, this thread is about concerns over Curse/WowAce requiring JavaScript. The purpose of this site is to host addons for WoW. There is nothing in the viewing/submitting of text or images (descriptions, comments, bug reports, forum posts) or in the uploading/downloading of binary files (addons) that can be meaningfully improved by using JavaScript, or that cannot be accomplished with reasonable parity without JavaScript.
By holding up Google Maps as your champion of the JavaScript cause, you're missing the point. The purpose of Google Maps is to display interactive maps. That cannot be accomplished with reasonable parity without JavaScript; while it would be technically possible to design an interactive map system that depended solely on static HTML, HTTP requests, and full page loads, the experience would be very different, and (from most points of view) much poorer. The same cannot be said of any features WowAce/Curse provides.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWebsites are not necessarily about rendering textual content. The Web, as a platform, is a lot richer than that. In the early days, video-games also used to be text based (zork/adventure cave). Look at what they are now. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be any text-based game/website in the future (and I'm not saying that we should reject disabilities), but the platform is evolving to something else. That evolution is rooted on the use of Javascript as an access to client-side processing and that refusing Javascript as a block is already an obsolete POV that's only going to get more obsolete.
Your argument about rendering speed is also untrue. Webkit renders updates to DOM content extremely fast. Page loads requires quite obviously a full page of content to be processed each time, whereas DOM updates can be limited to the only portion of the page that needs it, making it much faster.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI do not think JavaScript is bad. Hey, JavaScript/ECMAScript is/was The Cool Web Thing! And hey, it is the future for every interactive web application ('Rock Creek' or any other experimental chip development from any(!) major microchip producing company shows the direction).
But, the good, cool websites does not NEED JavaScript/Flash or other shit! They does not need it to access there content!!! The content of a website is the main reason someone is looking at it. The JavaScript/Flash part is and should be The Gimmick/The additional feature/The better navi/The whatever...but should never be required to access the main content! Any serious websites knows that! and most serious websites follow this simple rule because of a simple fact: more visitors!
And Jerry, you are absoultely wrong if you think a JavaScript-based website lowers serverload. This is not true for nearly all websites that are available today. Okay, in it's essence you are right! But do you know what this means? (...if bandwidth cost is low and hardware/maintenance cost is relatively high - which is the case currently and I bet this will not change...) In it's end it means: the cost to view a website is transferred to the viewer! CPU power/Hardware/Time...all this costs real money, mainly energy! (and money for hardware)...all this costs are transferred to the viewer! The enduser/costumer! Not to the one who wants to get a visitor/customer! - with no benefit for the visitor/customer, no nothing. (well, that's a nice argument, for or against it...isn't it?...but)
There is one main thing every website is trying to achieve: Accessibility!!!
The main goal for every website is to get more visitors or better: everyone should be able to view it. And you do NOT achieve this by technically restricting a website. HTML is a wonderful invention. Simple, pure HTML is the only script language you need to make a good website! Sure, it all depends on the content, but unless you need interactive elements, HTML (and CSS) is all you need.
To say it again: I am not against JavaScript. But I hate the way stupid companies/webdevelopers use it. It's a real shame. Go to a random website and look at the JavaScript code: they copy a 20KB script and use one function from that shit! The web is full of stupid webdevelopers who use stupid 'IDE-like' shit with stupid pre-defined JavaShit code...one click and you have that full-featured-web-2.0 shitloaded website. Funny: geocities was the ugly guy in the beginning...nowadays all that so-called web-2.0 fukker sites are sooo sooo uglybad...haha (ohhh I really hate Tim OâReilly for that stupid web-2.0 marketing gag, years after user-generated-content websites was really something new)
And, please do not use 'google' as a good example for anything. google is bad! Microsoft was the evil one in the pre-internet-age (hmm well let's say pre-google-age), google is it now! Pseudo-OpenSource doesn't make a company a good one! googles' OpenSource-Cloak mean: give me all! There is only one thing google made really good: there search engine webdesign (repect! ohh well simple pure HTML). Do you ever tried to use an other google product without JavaScript? No? Try! And think twice, why they use JavaScript (and no I do not mean the products you obviously need a client-side scripting language like javascript).
: A website that does not require interactive elements for main content should always be usable without JavaScript/Flash!
Please keep wowace.com usable without JavaScript/Flash. Thanks!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumFallacy (Appeal to Belief)
Please provide any kind of proof about that. It stands to reason that providing less data and performing less runtime processing (i.e. not parsing PHP scripts to render HTML content) should lower website serverload. Any argument saying the opposite would need some serious argumentation.
Yes, in extenso, it means it costs less to provide content over the web too, which means is more accessible as a platform too. So, as a user, you get more content.
Holy and pure HTML is the way the lord intended. I understand perfectly your (absence of) reason in this.
Don't blame the tool if the user is not using it correctly. Advocate better use of the tool.
I'm sorry, but in what exactly way google is bad exactly, because you didn't explain it at all. Why google use javascript so much ? I would say because that is the way to go. I would say because that is the smart thing to do. Google may have shady or even wrong intents, I can not tell, but they sure as hell do a very good job at providing tools, websites, open source projects and funds that are of a very good quality. Did you know that Google donated money to several open source projects, one of them being LuaJIT ? I find it hard to explain how that is bad.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumOld people clinging to Old Ways for no better reason than simple contempt for something new that they don't see as being needed for themselves.
There are some valid points made in this thread, none of them having to do with JS or Flash but simply on inconsistent design schemes ("pop up to view" vs "page load and back button"). To me it sounds like bitching and moaning about the city putting in concrete and asphalt vs having dirt roads.
What your asking for is like asking to remove cars from the general public's use because they can kill people. When the Fact is that it's not the cars killing people its the stupid drivers making mistakes.
I can only assume that you want a productive resolution to the problem here, because you posted. So post something productive such as a change to the sites setup, layout, and functionality. Asking a small team of Web Developers to think of every single nook-and-cranny element that could irritate a visitor to go and "fix" is a sign of stupidity on your part. Most of you are addon authors and like all things that are developed, feed back is required for improvement of any kind. Developers can only think of so many things when considering the size of a project.
Asking them (If we had a WebDev person) to redesign the site so that you can have your backwards ways of disabling JS is obscene.
This will be my only 2c I'll contribute here.
I clearly stated several times that I do not "hate" or feel "contempt" for JavaScript, or anything else being discussed in this thread. I have also never said anything to the effect that JavaScript should never be used, or to the effect that I think the Curse developers (or any other website's developers) should redesign the site to accomodate my personal wishes.
If you are going to ignore what I actually say, and insult me based on things that I do not believe and certainly have not said, then there is no reason for me to continue participating in this discussion. Thanks for your time.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium@ Phanx
I actually wasn't addressing you at all (thank you for ignoring that part of my post). You have a tendency to actually apply logic and reason to a topic of interest, tho I must wonder about this one. Jerry makes some valid points that you haven't answered yet.
---------
Im actually a lot more angry at this topic, but will not share it. Sharing would provide nothing productive.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum ModeratorI'm with you on this one, OrionShock.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumAlready done:
So yeah. Being able to go to the login page and actually get the new-age javascriptajaxDOMwhateverthefuck it is to decide that "oh HEY, we should present the text fields allowing them to login" would be good. Whether that means you make the dynamic coding smarter ("they've manually clicked the login link. Should we ignore whatever cookies might be present and display the login box?" hint: the answer is YES), or go all retro and ancient and backwards and remove the needlessly dynamic code elements from a page with a static name and static purpose, is up to the designers. I can only point out that currently, they're doing it wrong.
If my words are a little too sarcastic for whomever it was that designed the current failure of a page, well, they've earned it. Whoever thought that it would be acceptable for [FONT="Courier New"]http://wow.curse.com/login.aspx[/FONT] to even be capable of choosing to not display the text fields has failed in their job. Ignoring repeated bug reports only means they've earned public contempt as well.
Do I expect anything to actually get fixed? No.