"John Roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Jon Slaughter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Someone mentioned that you might "require JavaScript on the client
>> side". I recommend against that - people and organizations disable
>> JavaScript for security reasons, and browsers on portable devices may
>> not have JavaScript at all. Why limit your audience? If you understand
>> HTML, it's possible to write a web page that uses JavaScript (or any
>> other such technology) for flashy effects, but still functions
>> properly if the user has disabled JavaScript, or doesn't have it
>> available. But that's a long discussion - see <URL:
>> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/papers.green.html > for more
>> information.
>
> I would have said that at one time, but then the world changed
> with AJAX, expecially with Google using very script heavy applications
> for all of their new work. It leads to very responsive web applications.
Actually, AJAX just makes the case for wanting JavaScript turned on
stronger - it doesn't change the fundamental facts of what's going
on. People/organization will still turn off JavaScript because it
represents a security risk. Low-end network devices will still have
browsers that can't do JavaScript. You can still either code your
pages to alienate such users, or you can provide them with the same
basic functionality as they'd get if they had JavaScript, except it
won't be as responsive/flashy as it would be if they did.
Try Googles new work with JavaScript turned off. You'll find that a
lot of the new stuff works fine without it, thought it may not be as
spiffy. For those that don't, they warn the user that it won't work,
which means they are doing better than 90% of the sites that require
JavaScript on the web.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
