[thelist] navigation through form posting

[.jeff]

david,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: David Kutcher
>
> Disabling javascript, which the vast majority of sites
> on the internet use?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

use, but not abuse -- as you're implying is ok to do.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> The MAJORITY of major sites on the internet use
> javascript.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

so they use it.  most of the ones i've seen don't require it to use the site.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I fail to see why a site should cater to people that
> realize the choice they made to disable javascript bars
> them from effectively using sites such as hotmail, cnn,
> nytimes, and thousands of others.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

hotmail.com requiring javascript is relatively new and completely unnecessary.  all the core functions they provide (sans the rich text message composing) can be done without javascript.  requiring javascript is a bad move, imho.

cnn.com does *not* require javascript.

nytimes.com doesn't require it.

msnbc.com doesn't require it.

yahoo.com doesn't require it.

wsj.com (wall street journal) doesn't require it.

google.com doesn't require it.

eddiebauer.com doesn't require it.

news.com doesn't require it.

travelocity.com doesn't require it.

where are all these major sites that require javascript?

the only somewhat major sites i can think of are expedia.com, expediamaps.com, and hotmail.com.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > what do you do about people that are behind firewalls
> > that strip javascript?  not a whole lot they can do
> > even if they've got js enabled eh?
>
> Can you please point me to a firewall product that
> strips javascript?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i'm not familiar with certain brands of firewalls that are capable of doing this, but suffice to say, it's definitely possible and being done in some places.

do a search on google and you'll see what i'm talking about:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=firewall+strips+javascript&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en>

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > what if i don't have a browser on my machine, but i've
> > got telnet or ssh? so, i connect to another machine
> > and crank up an instance of lynx.  no javascript
> > there.
>
> A hypothetical.  If you are browsing like the millions
> of other people on the Internet and are not stuck ONLY
> on a *nix workstation, you browse with IE.  Sorry to
> state a sad fact.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

because i'm using unix does my credit card not work or my money not spend the same?  if the answer is no then you're argument doesn't hold up.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > then let's talk about accessing your content with
> > something other than a browser.  how many handheld
> > devices have javascript?  ie for windows ce device
> > doesn't count.  that leaves you with a big fat zero
> > currently.
>
> Yes, I'm certain that some user is going to go to your
> site with a WAP handheld to view your content and pay
> $1.95/minute.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

did i say wap?  no, i said handheld.  the ambiguity was on purpose.

as an example, i could pull up any number of sites using my palm (if i had one) and wouldn't pay a dime to do it.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> That's the purpose of style sheets, xml, and xslt.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that's one of the purposes and that's one way to approach the problem, but not the only way.  evolt.org is usable on a palm, but we don't use any xml/xslt.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> If you plan on providing content where different devices
> will need to access your site, you make your site
> available to those users.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

ditto for javascript.  ;p

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Does your personal homepage need to be WAP accessible?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

nope.  however, if a handheld user were to visit my homepage, i'd hope it'd degrade gracefully and still be usable.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > however, i don't think that's the method tony was
> > talking about though.  he was referring to something
> > more like expediamaps.com has.  try getting some
> > driving directions and bookmarking the page.  it can't
> > be done.
>
> However, you CAN bookmark yahoo maps with their
> exceptionally long url strings.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

agreed, but i find yahoo's mapping service to be inferior to expedia's service.  the maps don't look as good.  the directions aren't as accurate.  the service doesn't return results as quickly.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/