Apr 28, 2008

Should we care about non-js browsers?

I love the idea of unobtrusive javascripts. It makes JS code much cleaner and much easier to maintain and makes space for browsers without JS or with JS disabled. However, there's one glitch - implementing the same feature twice (plain HTML and JS) takes much more time than just one of the ways.
I like to do stuff "the right way", so I'm always happy to go with both options in our applications. But what is the real percentage of users browsing without JS? I'd say pretty damn small! That's why I'm considering abandoning non-js browser support unless explicitly requested by client. Maybe the time has come to forget the old times when people could actually use the internet without JS...
Posted by Robert Nasiadek at 8:49 PM
Labels: ,

2 comments:

  1. i just stumbled upon this post when searching for info on JS support.

    I think your making a very bad decision by abandoning non-JS browsers as your going to affect your clients far more than just whther 1% of people can't view the content. Search engine spides won't execute the JS, screen readers, etc.

    This will make clients run for the hills because:
    a) Everyone cares about how high they get up a search engine's results page and if the search engine can't see your content.. then the search engine isn't going to rank the site ("Content is King!")

    b) Legislation makes it illegal to discriminate against disabled users, and disabled users will use screen readers, screen readers that don't execute JS!

    I know this post is old, so i hope you changed your mind!
    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, right now I'm much more for "lite" version of the site for screen-readers, mobile devices, etc. and full-version with all the fancy stuff.

    Regarding your arguments.

    a) True, that's why lack of JS shouldn't prevent you from accessing the content, only from manipulating it. Things like 5-star rating widget, box-folding, drag'n'drop customization in JS-only manner will not prevent your site from being indexed properly.

    b) The best way to cover this is by creating a separate version of the front-end. You can't have it all - a highly usable site with lots of dynamic elements and screen reader friendliness. These 2 things just get into way of each other and there's no point in finding middle ground here.

    What about sites that make heavy use of Flash (which isn't really friendly for disabled users)?

    Have you tried using sites like Facebook with JS disabled? A lot of functionality simply won't work. Especially from business perspective that makes perfect sense.

    I guess my point was that JS-disabled browsers should not have priority and can be lacking in some more advanced areas of web applications. Making sites not work at all on JS-disabled browsers is a very bad idea.
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)