Great example of a graceful <noscript> handling

by huhtenberg • 14 years ago

7 13 14 years ago

sohn• 14 years ago

Instead of that meaningless message, they could have a static webpage with the same content the real "notwerk.com" has, but in plain text - after all, it's less text than the <noscript> message!

TazeTSchnitzel• 14 years ago

Or, heck, actually put that noscript in a noscript tag. Instead of on another page.

EDIT: Oh, they actually do.

khyryk2• 14 years ago

My own great example of graceful handling of graceful <noscript> handling: the back button.

huhtenberg3• 14 years ago

That'd be an awful lot of clicking. I submitted this because the page makes an effort to reason with NoScript users, something that I haven't seen done before... and judging by your snarky reply is probably altogether pointless.

khyryk2• 14 years ago

It takes just one click to get away from the website, which is what people like myself would instantly do. I enable scripts to run on websites that are useful to me and require JS for functionality. Stumbling across a random website isn't going to be enough.

ComputerGuru2• 14 years ago

That's not graceful. I wasn't sure if it was submitted sarcastically or not.

Graceful degradation would be to work as best as possible without Javascript - even if it means having to create a whole new design that's JS free.

eps• 14 years ago

This is graceful enough, practically speaking.

Redoing the site to cater to a NoScript crowd is an extra expense with unclear benefits that is rather hard to justify in many situations.

rbehrends• 14 years ago

The primary benefit is that the "NoScript crowd" includes a lot of people with disabilities who do not belong to it by choice, but because screen readers and other assistive technologies generally do not get along well with Javascript.

Mind you, I understand that making a website accessible is not a trivial task and that the expense may indeed be hard to justify for a given project; but the benefits are anything but unclear.

huhtenberg3• 14 years ago

No, not sarcastically. It's the first time I saw the noscript message actually try and explain why exactly the Javascript is needed.

ComputerGuru2• 14 years ago

I understand, but (to me) graceful degradation isn't using a noscript tag to explain why you need JS, but rather implementing your site JS-free from the ground-up, then developing JS-based improvements that are loaded into the site for maximum grace and compatibility.

It may be different for me since I've been deploying JS/AJAX on a number of eCommerce sites where you really don't want to lose even a single customer, I suppose. The basic site is designed without any JS, then if we're able to load JQuery and the browser meets our requirements (for instance, we just disable JS on any IE6 or below browsers), it'll load up nice features such as JS presentational effects, AJAX form submission, etc.

EDIT: There's isn't a "budget" for this, it's really minimal extra work.

michael_fine• 14 years ago

So they said two things: Presentational and Metrics. Presentational they should do what you said, with graceful degradation, but with metrics I would just give them up. I'd rather not have metrics on a user than lose a user.

aidenn0• 14 years ago

TLDR

Great example of a graceful &lt;noscript&gt; handling

Related Stories

Great example of a graceful <noscript> handling