That’s totally your choice to make :). But if you choose to not agree to disagree, then you are in fact agreeing with me 
Ah, OK. Your earlier remark
seemed to suggest otherwise. I apologise if I’ve misunderstood.
I’d be interested to see some examples.
That is not even close to what I said. I said that some people who have JavaScript disabled do so because of a disability.
While others simply do it because a lot of what designers do with javascript just pisses users off. Again, see the “Noscript” plugin for FF and the per page options in Opera.
As have been mentioned, HTML5 is an “evolving spec”, this means even when officially “released” the powers that be reserve the right to change their minds. :(. A sad development in developing standards for developers. This requires a new way of thinking when deciding when to implement it’s use.
Like DS60 pointed out, some of the mark up in HTML seems unnecessarily bloated ( I add to that sentiment, especially when you consider that HTML5 was meant to be used along side CSS3 which allows multiple background images). Oh and I saw this in a would -be client’s code: <div class=“NavWrap”><div id=“mainNav”><na><ul> …FTW,DS60!!!
HOWEVER HTML5 is not intrinsically evil. You just cant go at it full hog yet. In some cases it actually does save bloat…
Block links , for example: <a><p>some thing in a paragraph </p><p>another paragraph in the same ground all which you want linked</p></a>. There are probably more useful examples of that implementation, but still quite clever. The thing is to pick and choose correctly.
I used to be in that camp that made sure everything worked completely with or without js, now it really depends on the use case.
I’d be interested to see some examples.
The most obvious is enabling better keyboard support for navigation.
Captioning
Text-size switchers
And more…
http://www.slideshare.net/cheilmann/scripting-enabled-how-to-make-the-web-more-accessible-with-javascript-and-flash-presentation
That is not even close to what I said. I said that some people who have JavaScript disabled do so because of a disability.
I realise that, I’m just interested what it is in particular that makes those users disable js.
Which is funny since for keyboard users it would be more useful to turn the script off, and have the script written so that the methods are attached by the script… scripting off, you get the expanded version… I’d probably copy the h2’s textnode into a createElement(‘a’) so the markup isn’t wasting time on code not everyone needs… or append an anchor for the open/close element… Oh wait, that’s EXACTLY what I did on my accordion script.
I’m not getting why that even needs javascript…
TOTAL waste of code on damned near every site that does it since browsers have zoom and you can use %/em to give users auto-sizing. One of the dumbest things you’ll see on websites and usually an indicator the coder has no clue what they are doing. Ranks right up there with “bookmark me” links or scripted tooltips on EVERYTHING.
Which is why on most sites that do that I end up sending * { font-size:100% !important; line-height:140% !important; } via user.css – increasingly common on sites with useless font sizes like say… these very forums.
There is some sense to what you’re saying though – javascript can be used to ENHANCE the user experience… like anything else it’s just when it’s abused/misused that it’s a royal PITA, which is why people start disabling it. Stupid animations, hundreds of K of javascript to do a couple k of CSS’ job, etc, etc… See how 90% of what jquery does is stuff I wouldn’t put on a website in the first place, and the remaining 10% just makes scripting cryptic for no good reason. (because C dialect languages aren’t cryptic enough to start with)
Unless you’re doing something that can ONLY be done in javascript – like a game, or an ACTUAL application like google maps – Javascript should be restricted to enhancing functionality, not supplanting it. It often feels to me like an overwhelming number of websites bloated down with several hundred K of javascript seem to be doing it for nothing that couldn’t be done faster/easier without the scripting in the first place.
Now look at them yo-yo’s, that’s not how you do it
You code your pages in ASP
That ain’t working, that’s not how you do it
JS for nothing and your scripts for free.
Though you’re asking why some people block scripts? Go visit one of those websites that has that STUPID ANNOYING “turn random words into popup links to advertisements” scripts. See websites that appear to load normally, but then do a popup when you go to click on the first link… Scripting can be so annoying that many people would rather lose any “enhancements” than deal with the BS.
I’m still not convinced. On the first one, I’m with DS60 - much better to have the menu visible and have the JavaScript - if enabled - hide it. As per post #35, I’ll go elsewhere if I can’t navigate a site without JavaScript. The second one, I think I may be missing the point. I accept that JavaScript can be written in an accessible way, but I’m not quite sure how this example fits with “increasing accessibility”. The third link really fails to convince me - not least because it doesn’t work without JavaScript enabled, and there’s no fall-back content. Yes, I did try to be fair and enable JavaScript just to see what I was missing. The answer seems to be a series of slides, each with one sentence, where I’m required to click the mouse or use the arrow key 125 times to work my way through a presentation that would have been much easier to access in plain HTML/CSS. Admittedly, I gave up after the first 15, so maybe I missed the good stuff.
Well, for pretty much the same reasons DS60 gives for the rest of the population.
There is a current trend that says every site must have a slide-show or other animation, however useless. If you want to be really cool, you have several. And possibly a series of animated advertisements, too. And because your wonderful effects are so awesome, naturally you don’t want any visitor turning them off, so you don’t bother providing any mechanism for that, despite accessibility guidelines[SUP]1[/SUP]. Which leaves folk with some visual, perceptual or neurological problems no option but to defend themselves by disabling JavaScript altogether.
There are other examples, but that’s the problem - not necessarily JavaScript itself, but the way it’s implemented.
(1)7.3 Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages. [Priority 2]