E-mail List Archives
Thread: Is javascript a big issue?
Number of posts in this thread: 11 (In chronological order)
From: Chris Price
Date: Sun, Mar 14 2004 6:23PM
Subject: Is javascript a big issue?
No previous message | Next message →
How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
without non-js alternative. I know how to provide the alternative I'm just
interested in who this affects.
It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is that
out of date.
--
Chris Price
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Paul Bohman
Date: Sun, Mar 14 2004 7:09PM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
Numbers are a bit hard to come by, but it is instructive to at least try
to figure out what types of people will be "turned away" if you use
javascript-dependent menus. One major point to consider is that nearly
all javascript menu systems are inaccessible to the keyboard. Keyboard
accessibility is a significant issue that will never be out of date. The
summary is that the content will be inaccessible to:
1. blind users
2. users with motor disabilities who can't use a mouse
3. anyone with javascript turned off
4. anyone who happens to like navigating with a keyboard
5. anyone using a browser on which the javascript doesn't work
The last point is interesting, because so many javascript menus were
written to work only on Internet Explorer and old Netscape. Many of them
don't work on New Netscape or on Opera, though both of these can handle
most javascript quite well, especially new Netscape. The trouble is that
many scripts were purposefully written to exclude anything other than IE
or old Netscape. You just have to make sure that you're using a good
script to begin with.
Your question of how many users will be turned away is hard to answer,
because if the site is inaccessible to someone, they are unlikely to be
a repeat visitor, whereas accessible sites may get repeat visits from
users with disabilities. Plus every site has a slightly different set of
users. It would be better to ask how many *potential* users you're
turning away, or what percentage of potential users might have a disability.
Though estimates vary, I've seen several sources estimate the percentage
of people in the United States with disabilities to be at about 20% to
30% when you include cognitive disabilities and temporary disabilities
(broken arm, broken leg, etc.). A few estimates are even higher, but
most are in the 20-30% rang. This will overestimate the percentage of
people that cannot access your Web site of course, because not all
disabilities affect a person's ability to use a computer.
I've seen estimates that 5-10% of the population has a disability that
affects their ability to use a computer. Beyond that, it would be very
difficult--for me at least--to put a number on the quantity of people
who would potentially be "turned away" without alternatives to
javascript menus.
If your hunch is that it is a small percentage, you're right. It is a
small percentage.
But I hope you don't use that as a justification to ignore the
principle. Keep in mind that for many people with disabilities, a
computer is their best method for retrieving information from the
"outside world" and/or for communicating with others. In other words,
computers are the solution. They break down barriers for people who
would have difficulty obtaining information any other way. People talk
about making accommodations for people with disabilities on computers.
The fact is that *the computer IS the accommodation*. When you create
content that shuts out these people, you nullify the solution and force
them to either do without the information or to depend upon others to
obtain the information for them.
Chris Price wrote:
> How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
> without non-js alternative.
>
> It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is that
> out of date.
--
Paul Ryan Bohman
Web Accessibility Specialist/Project Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Center for Persons with Disabilities
www.cpd.usu.edu
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Katharine Whitelaw
Date: Sun, Mar 14 2004 8:16PM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
And if you don't think the numbers for people with disabilities are
compelling (I certainly do), add to them the people using various
devices to access your web site. People using PDA's do not have a
mouse, they may not have a keyboard, and there are many different
operating systems out there right now, some of which aren't very
sophisticated.
Katy Whitelaw
ITS Customer Support Center
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 3/14/04 8:00:47 PM >>>
Numbers are a bit hard to come by, but it is instructive to at least
try
to figure out what types of people will be "turned away" if you use
javascript-dependent menus. One major point to consider is that nearly
all javascript menu systems are inaccessible to the keyboard. Keyboard
accessibility is a significant issue that will never be out of date.
The
summary is that the content will be inaccessible to:
1. blind users
2. users with motor disabilities who can't use a mouse
3. anyone with javascript turned off
4. anyone who happens to like navigating with a keyboard
5. anyone using a browser on which the javascript doesn't work
The last point is interesting, because so many javascript menus were
written to work only on Internet Explorer and old Netscape. Many of
them
don't work on New Netscape or on Opera, though both of these can handle
most javascript quite well, especially new Netscape. The trouble is
that
many scripts were purposefully written to exclude anything other than
IE
or old Netscape. You just have to make sure that you're using a good
script to begin with.
Your question of how many users will be turned away is hard to answer,
because if the site is inaccessible to someone, they are unlikely to be
a repeat visitor, whereas accessible sites may get repeat visits from
users with disabilities. Plus every site has a slightly different set
of
users. It would be better to ask how many *potential* users you're
turning away, or what percentage of potential users might have a
disability.
Though estimates vary, I've seen several sources estimate the
percentage
of people in the United States with disabilities to be at about 20% to
30% when you include cognitive disabilities and temporary disabilities
(broken arm, broken leg, etc.). A few estimates are even higher, but
most are in the 20-30% rang. This will overestimate the percentage of
people that cannot access your Web site of course, because not all
disabilities affect a person's ability to use a computer.
I've seen estimates that 5-10% of the population has a disability that
affects their ability to use a computer. Beyond that, it would be very
difficult--for me at least--to put a number on the quantity of people
who would potentially be "turned away" without alternatives to
javascript menus.
If your hunch is that it is a small percentage, you're right. It is a
small percentage.
But I hope you don't use that as a justification to ignore the
principle. Keep in mind that for many people with disabilities, a
computer is their best method for retrieving information from the
"outside world" and/or for communicating with others. In other words,
computers are the solution. They break down barriers for people who
would have difficulty obtaining information any other way. People talk
about making accommodations for people with disabilities on computers.
The fact is that *the computer IS the accommodation*. When you create
content that shuts out these people, you nullify the solution and force
them to either do without the information or to depend upon others to
obtain the information for them.
Chris Price wrote:
> How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based
navigation
> without non-js alternative.
>
> It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or
is that
> out of date.
--
Paul Ryan Bohman
Web Accessibility Specialist/Project Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Center for Persons with Disabilities
www.cpd.usu.edu
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 1:55AM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:17:07AM +0000, Chris Price wrote:
> How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
> without non-js alternative. I know how to provide the alternative I'm just
> interested in who this affects.
>
> It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is that
> out of date.
It is possible to layer JavaScript (or, in one case*, just CSS) functionality
on top of valid, semantic nested lists, using CSS to style them:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dropdowns
http://www.digital-web.com/columns/keepitsimple/keepitsimple_2004-01.shtml
* http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/menus/demo.html
Then, when a user agent doesn't have javascript and/or CSS, they still get the
meaningful markup on which your menu is based.
Regards,
Tim
--
"That's a whole lotta transparent GIFs going to be waiting in line at the job
centre." -- Nathan Pitman
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Chris Price
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 2:44AM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 15/3/04 2:00 am, "Paul Bohman" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Numbers are a bit hard to come by, but it is instructive to at least try
> to figure out what types of people will be "turned away" if you use
> javascript-dependent menus.
I wasn't specifically thinking about javascript (dynamic) menus. Rather, I
was thinking of where a link is coded <a
href="javascript:clickLink('whatever')"> and no allowance is made for
javascript not running so the link looks OK but when you click, nothing
happens.
Sorry I was not more specific.
My reason for asking this is not 'how lazy can I be' but what incentive am I
going to give someone to be more thoughtful in their coding. Its not about
going that extra mile, a couple of inches would help.
--
Chris Price
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 2:55AM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 09:38:48AM +0000, Chris Price wrote:
> I wasn't specifically thinking about javascript (dynamic) menus. Rather, I
> was thinking of where a link is coded <a
> href="javascript:clickLink('whatever')"> and no allowance is made for
> javascript not running so the link looks OK but when you click, nothing
> happens.
If using JavaScript in links is avoidable, then avoid it.
If not, then do something like this:
<a
href="alternative-for-non-js.html"
onclick="clickLink('whatever'); return false;"
onkeypress="clickLink('whatever'); return false;">Blah</a>
If you're just relocating to a url using JavaScript, you can use this.href as
the value you pass to your function, if you're (for instance) launching a page
in a pop-up window. Not that you'd ever do such a thing, of course ;)
E.g.
<a
href="page.html"
onclick="popup(this.href); return false;"
onkeypress="popup(this.href); return false;">
HTH,
Tim
--
"If you not hope to receive the similar letter again , please click here
remove. Thank you" -- Unknown 419 spammer
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 3:00AM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Chris Price wrote:
> I was thinking of where a link is coded <a
> href="javascript:clickLink('whatever')"> and no allowance is made for
> javascript not running so the link looks OK but when you click, nothing
> happens.
Such constructs have the extra problem that they comply with _no_
specification, since javascript: is not a publicly defined and registered
URI (URL) scheme. Even some JavaScript-enabled browsers refuse to
recognize such constructs. (This might be a weak argument, since this
probably applies to a few past versions of Opera only. But you need not
tell everything. :-))
> My reason for asking this is not 'how lazy can I be' but what incentive am I
> going to give someone to be more thoughtful in their coding. Its not about
> going that extra mile, a couple of inches would help.
A fairly strong practical argument is that such "links" are not recognized
as links by indexing robots. And especially Google uses links (real links,
that is) as very important indicators of page popularity.
And doing things right is easy, as soon as you learn the habits. Using
<a href="..." onclick="..."> with suitable arguments is smooth sailing.
For details see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/forms/javascript.html#window
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Larry G. Hull
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 7:44AM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
Chris,
You are going to turn away anyone who comes to your site without a
JavaScript enabled browser, i.e., either not enabled or not supported.
Few people using a computer have a browser that does not support JavaScript.
The few who do are largely the deaf-blind and some blind people who
for one reason or another (e.g., a hearing loss) don't use a screen
reader.
There is a growing number of people browsing the Web with devices
such as cell phones and PDA's. I don't know whether there is support
for JavaScript but if this group is important to you, you should
check. Perhaps someone who knows more about this area can comment.
Finally, depending upon how you code the JavaScript-based navigation,
it may or may not be usable by people using screen readers.
The following code is a problem as the screen reader user has no clue
where the link goes,
<a href="javascript:navFunction();">
<img src="navFunction.gif"></a>
and the usual remedy is to use alt text to provide the information to
the screen reader user.
<a href="javascript:navFunction();">
<img src="navFunction.gif" alt="navLocation"></a>
BTW: I understand that, when "navLocation" is both the text shown by
the image navFunction.gif and the alt text, people with voice
recognition technology have a much easier time using your page.
Larry
At 1:17 AM +0000 3/15/04, Chris Price wrote:
>How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
>without non-js alternative. I know how to provide the alternative I'm just
>interested in who this affects.
>
>It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is that
>out of date.
>
>--
>Chris Price
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Terence de Giere
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 1:57PM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
Statistics on JavaScript vary a bit, depending on the source of
information. For the sources I use, the percent of users that have
JavaScript disabled or unavailable has varied from 4 percent to 13
percent, as measured over several thousand websites during the past
year. I do not know if this data includes repeat visits. As Paul Bohman
mentioned, if a user comes to a site and it doesn't work, they leave and
do not return. These statistics generally represent desktop/laptop
systems with graphical browsers. Text browsers are used much less now,
but they tend to be underrepresented in statistics, and users of such
browsers leave sites that make no sense in text, and do not come back.
To comply with accessibility regulations based on the W3C Web
Accessibility Content Guidelines, information provided to the user must
be equivalent whether or not scripting is on or off. For the U.S.
Section 508 regulations, "When pages utilize scripting languages to
display content, or to create interface elements, the information
provided by the script shall be identified with functional text that can
be read by assistive technology" a somewhat less clear way of stating
the same thing.
Another problem with JavaScript statistics - it does not include the
percentage of users who have JavaScript on, but for which the script
malfunctions. Usually developers make sure complex scripts work with the
most used browsers but such scripts often do not work with older
browsers, or non-Microsoft browsers outside of Netscape. From a
usability point of view, scripting can be used for important functions,
and if inaccessible, an alternative page provided. Scripting is often
used to provide a dynamic experience to a page by creating animations,
and other tricks to make a page look more lively, but from a usability
point of view, unless such things are germane to the content of the
site, they typically distract the user from the task or search at hand
and actually reduce the usability of the page. Scripts, if large, also
increase download time, and still, in the U.S. about 58% of users are
accessing sites at dial-up modem speeds with 10% using 28kB download
speeds or slower. Scripts sometimes double the download time of a page
if they are large. So even if the users have JavaScript on, and it
works, they might still bail out of the site because it is slow. Users
start to bail out after about 10 seconds. In an ideal hypertext system,
the time from page to page should probably be about 1 or 2 seconds, so
assuming fast broadband access download speeds to cram more 'glitz' or
functionality in a page is not necessarily going to make a site better
either.
The core value of any site is content, not 'glitz', and the ability for
the user to get that content easily. The goal of the web envisioned by
the founder of the web, Tim Berners-Lee, was access for everyone.
Building a site around a core content that is accessible meets this
goal. Once such a site is designed, adding additional functionality in
terms of scripting, multimedia to enhance the site can be done by
making sure each of these new items has a functional equivalent. If that
seems rather dull, the most usable web sites tend to be less spectacular
looking and acting than many of those out there on the web. But good
usable and accessible sites also should have a larger potential
audience, and especially a repeat audience. Look at the interface for
Google - no frills, no glitz. It is completely functional for its
purpose, and very easy to use.
Ask yourself these questions: Who are your users? What do these users
want and need from your site? What is the best way to provide this need?
In other words, the users' needs, not the technology envisioned by the
developer of a site, should be the determining factor in what
technologies to use. If the technology is used for its own sake, it may
backfire by reducing the number of users who stay on the site or who
return to the site. There was a company in England recently that redid a
site for a client. They made the site accessible. The result was an
increase in traffic of 30 percent; part of this was the result of better
search engine placement, and part from improved general access. Search
engines see web pages much like a disabled user. This is a pretty good
improvement.
Terence de Giere
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Sachin Pavithran
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 2:36PM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | Next message →
Just FYI, I've heard several times that the latest version of JAWS seems to
work a lot better with JAVA script. I do run the latest version and I
haven't seen any difference yet. So for a screen reader user it would be
impossible to access the information since we will be using a keyboard.
******************************************************
Sachin Dev Pavithran
Training and Development Specialist
Center for Persons with Disabilities
6800 Old Main Hill,
Logan, Ut - 84322
U.S.A.
Work Phone : 1-(435)-797 0974
Email : = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Visit Us at http://www.cpd.usu.edu
******************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Price" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: Is javascript a big issue?
> How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
> without non-js alternative. I know how to provide the alternative I'm just
> interested in who this affects.
>
> It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is
that
> out of date.
>
> --
> Chris Price
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au
Date: Mon, Mar 15 2004 7:25PM
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
← Previous message | No next message
Just in support of the JavaScript not enabled - The Counter.com (e.g.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/December/javas.php) shows 12% to 13%
of users have no JavaScript available for past two years.
Andrew
"Larry G. Hull"
<Larry.G.Hull@nas To: Chris Price < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
a.gov> cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: Is javascript a big issue?
16/03/2004 01:35
AM
Please respond to
webaim-forum
Chris,
You are going to turn away anyone who comes to your site without a
JavaScript enabled browser, i.e., either not enabled or not supported.
Few people using a computer have a browser that does not support
JavaScript.
The few who do are largely the deaf-blind and some blind people who
for one reason or another (e.g., a hearing loss) don't use a screen
reader.
There is a growing number of people browsing the Web with devices
such as cell phones and PDA's. I don't know whether there is support
for JavaScript but if this group is important to you, you should
check. Perhaps someone who knows more about this area can comment.
Finally, depending upon how you code the JavaScript-based navigation,
it may or may not be usable by people using screen readers.
The following code is a problem as the screen reader user has no clue
where the link goes,
<a href="javascript:navFunction();">
<img src="navFunction.gif"></a>
and the usual remedy is to use alt text to provide the information to
the screen reader user.
<a href="javascript:navFunction();">
<img src="navFunction.gif" alt="navLocation"></a>
BTW: I understand that, when "navLocation" is both the text shown by
the image navFunction.gif and the alt text, people with voice
recognition technology have a much easier time using your page.
Larry
At 1:17 AM +0000 3/15/04, Chris Price wrote:
>How many visitors am I going to turn away if I have js based navigation
>without non-js alternative. I know how to provide the alternative I'm just
>interested in who this affects.
>
>It is a WAG Priority 1 issue so I imagine it must be significant. Or is
that
>out of date.
>
>--
>Chris Price
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, suspend, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/