«

In message <k31ps4$gm2$>
Neil Gould <> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>> Neil Gould <> wrote:
>>> richard wrote:
>>>> A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
>>>> Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
>>>> That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does
>>>> not need to be refreshed.
>>>>
>>> And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a blank,
>>> or worse. That's a "better way"???
>>
>> What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>> not work without it.
>>
> You'd be surprised, apparently. A good website design does not require that
> which can't be assured, especially when the information is important to the
> customer.

I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.

--
Charlie don't surf!

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<> wrote:

[snip]

>What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>not work without it.

It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
allowed to execute JavaScript. I do temporarily allow some sites to
execute JavaScript.

There are over 1,000 sites on the Web to choose from so I do not
feel that I am missing much.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 20:10:14 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<> wrote:

[snip]

>I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
>Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
>few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.

I have seen many sites that do not allow navigating links without
having JavaScript enabled. (What is wrong with using <a>?) When that
sort of silliness happens, I try a different site. There are a lot of
them to try.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

In message <>
Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <> wrote:

> [snip]

>>What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>>not work without it.

> It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
> NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
> allowed to execute JavaScript.

So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?

Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.

>I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.

And again.


--
A: You can never go too far. B: If I'm gonna get busted, it is *not*
gonna be by a guy like *that*.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<> wrote:

>In message <>
> Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
>>>What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>>>not work without it.
>
>> It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
>> NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
>> allowed to execute JavaScript.
>
>So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?
>
>Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.
>
>>I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.
>
>And again.

Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

Those 30 (plus the temps which I do not count) Websites are the
ones that need JavaScript AND are of use to me. I access far more
Websites that do not need JavaScript.

There are many, many Websites that do not require JavaScript.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Lewis wrote:
> In message <k31ps4$gm2$>
> Neil Gould <> wrote:
>> Lewis wrote:
>>> Neil Gould <> wrote:
>>>> richard wrote:
>>>>> A better way might be to display a set of rows at a time.
>>>>> Using a bit of javascript to show/hide each sub table.
>>>>> That way, the full table is already on the page and the page does
>>>>> not need to be refreshed.
>>>>>
>>>> And, customers with JavaScript disabled would be staring at a
>>>> blank, or worse. That's a "better way"???
>>>
>>> What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply
>>> does not work without it.
>>>
>> You'd be surprised, apparently. A good website design does not
>> require that which can't be assured, especially when the information
>> is important to the customer.
>
> I would be surprised. Last year I tried an experiment of disabling
> Javascript for a day. I could do almost nothing on the Internet. Very
> few sites worked well, and most didn't work at all.
>
I have the opposite experience. Perhaps because I personally use the quality
of a site's design as a filter to eliminate vendors and so forth. Poor
designs suggest that my time would be better spent at one of their
competitor's sites, and requiring Javascript for basic browsing is a
sure-fire indicator of a bad design. Saves me a lot of time, and improves
the quality of my browsing experience.

--
best regards,

Neil

In message <>
Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <> wrote:

>>In message <>
>> Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>>>>not work without it.
>>
>>> It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
>>> NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
>>> allowed to execute JavaScript.
>>
>>So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?
>>
>>Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.
>>
>>>I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.
>>
>>And again.

> Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
> work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
> use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

You are not part of the percentage of users that have Javascript
enabled, since you have found at least 30 sites that you want to use
that require it.

Which was the originla question, "What percentage of users have
Javascript disabled?"

--
Secondly, the Earth's a Libra

In message <>
Lewis <> wrote:
> In message <>
> Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:00:16 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <> wrote:

>>>In message <>
>>> Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:13:12 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>>What percentage of users have JAvascript disabled? The web simply does
>>>>>not work without it.
>>>
>>>> It sure does. I tend to skip sites requiring JavaScript. I use
>>>> NoScript and have only about 30 sites in my permanent list of sites
>>>> allowed to execute JavaScript.
>>>
>>>So, those 30 sites that you allow, do they work without javascript?
>>>
>>>Because if not, you really just proved my point for me.
>>>
>>>>I do temporarily allow some sites to execute JavaScript.
>>>
>>>And again.

>> Pardon me? I believe that your claim was that the Web does not
>> work without JavaScript. If a small percentage of the Websites that I
>> use require JavaScript, that does not mean that the whole Web does.

> You are not part of the percentage of users that have Javascript
> enabled,

Disabled.

> since you have found at least 30 sites that you want to use
> that require it.

> Which was the originla question, "What percentage of users have
> Javascript disabled?"



--
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

In article <k37tpq$ma8$>,
"Neil Gould" <> wrote:

> I personally use the quality
> of a site's design as a filter to eliminate vendors and so forth. Poor
> designs suggest that my time would be better spent at one of their
> competitor's sites, and requiring Javascript for basic browsing is a
> sure-fire indicator of a bad design. Saves me a lot of time, and improves
> the quality of my browsing experience.

I once heard a cow in a field discussing the quality of the grasses.
One said to the other, "Me, I'm not so fussy to be going only for the
best grasses in a field, there's no time. I have to eat, there are
calves to be fed, bulls to be avoided or enjoyed. Near enough is good
enough. Yes, sometimes I just hold my nose and swallow."

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <k37tpq$ma8$>,
> "Neil Gould" <> wrote:
>
>> I personally use the quality
>> of a site's design as a filter to eliminate vendors and so forth.
>> Poor designs suggest that my time would be better spent at one of
>> their competitor's sites, and requiring Javascript for basic
>> browsing is a sure-fire indicator of a bad design. Saves me a lot of
>> time, and improves the quality of my browsing experience.
>
> I once heard a cow in a field discussing the quality of the grasses.
> One said to the other, "Me, I'm not so fussy to be going only for the
> best grasses in a field, there's no time. I have to eat, there are
> calves to be fed, bulls to be avoided or enjoyed. Near enough is good
> enough. Yes, sometimes I just hold my nose and swallow."
>
Loved your analogy, and couldn't agree more!

--
best regards,

Neil