Javascript only... or not?

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:55 pm

Hey all-

I'm helping to finish out iGallery started by Jestrella(sp?... sorry if I misspelled) and the more I dig into this project... the more I'm debating the pro's & con's of coding both ways. (with and without js enabled)

What I'm coming to realize is that most of the features I've added or he has added in or will be adding shortly rely on javascript being enabled. In fact... when all is said n' done... 70-80% of the way it will work would depend on javascript... however, I know that a lot of coders would argue against that. But regardless.. even if it's coded both ways... 70-80% of it won't work as intended anyhow if JS is disabled.

So I'm at a cross roads of sorts pondering the potential benefits of coding it for disabled/unsupported javascript. Thoughts... suggestions... inputs... anything to help me sway one way or another??

Please excuse me... I'm brain dead from this undertaking and need to let it out a bit.

Sad

Thanks.

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:26 pm

The 'correct' way is to build it so that it degrades gracefully if JS is disabled.
However, in the real-world, who actually really runs their browser with JS disabled these days? Not many I would guess and if they wanted to use iGallery then they would have to either enable JS or not use it. I honestly don't subscribe to the belief that there or tons of users out there all running their browsers without JS enabled.
Personally I only have two concerns with JS;
you should never rely on JS (client side) for data validation
be aware that valuable search engine content might be hidden

Provided the user is given a message informing them that JS is required, I would say go with the flow.

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:46 pm

That is the logic that brought me to this cross road. The majority of end users use social site, video sites etc that prompt them to use JS. I also understand the "correct" method would be have it degrade nicely... however, in this instance...the gains of it just don't add up to what it would take to making that handful of users happy.

Not sure if this will really affect the SEO aspect of the gallery. (I'm no SEO guru by any stretch) The JS is mostly for administration/display within the gallery rather than providing information.

I just believe I can make the gallery much better if I didn't have to split my mind in two different directions. Thanks for the input Guardian!!

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:40 pm

As far as losing functionality with JavaScript disabled, that's to be expected... As there is usually no fallback method available, or you wouldn't be using JavaScript in the first place... Smile

For me personally, I usually shoot for the page in question "not looking horribly broken" with JS disabled; and possibly displaying a warning in noscript tags.. Usually an image that links to a page about enabling JS is best, as search engines index the content of noscript tags. Although I think we had a similar conversation here some time back Wink

Code:

<noscript><a href="javascript-warning-page.html"><img src="javascript-warning.png" alt="To properly view this page, JavaScript must be enabled" /></a></noscript>

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Use jQuery as much as possible for it's built-in JS degradation.

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:37 am

Raven wrote:

Use jQuery as much as possible for it's built-in JS degradation.

Sorry for the confusion Raven, when I say Javascript in the context of RN... Jquery is what I mean.

@spasticdonkey... When you say "I usually shoot for the page in question "not looking horribly broken" with JS disabled" that is exactly what I'm thinking on a grander scale. 1/2 of the gallery would be rendered utterly useless without javascript enabled and the other 1/2 would basically be reduced to a extremely simple image viewer. Not to mention the administrative functions that be reduced to 90's era functionality.

So what my dilemma is... do I make the entire gallery Jquery (JS) required totally... or do I code it both ways just to include what handful of people might have it disabled but who will not get but about 20% of the intended usage.

I've tried to pay attention to what people say and those who've had long running experiences with coding but I couldn't make up my mind based on what I've read... hence I posted here to get input from you salty dogs because y'all have insight I value greatly.

I think based on the responses I've received back that it would be "ok" to require JS be enabled otherwise don't use the gallery would be an acceptable approach.

Thank you all for your input!!