sg707 — 2010-09-27T16:58:55-04:00 — #1
I'm a proJS enabler, meaning that I assume the visitors to have JS turned on! Many cries out loud "Your site sucks because I can't access your site when I turned off JS". So, I did some research on what sites that malfunction when JS is turned off. Please keep in mind I only tested 1~2 min each per site.
Facebook - Messages
Can not see messages at all
Youtube - Add/Remove Modules
Gets stuck at "Load ..." screen
Blogger - clicked on this text "Try the template designer"
Gets stuck at blank screen
Twitter - Top Tweets
Can not see top tweets on home page
felgall — 2010-10-11T17:01:19-04:00 — #2
stomme_poes — 2010-10-12T04:56:12-04:00 — #3
Warning: the following will likely offend someone's mom, and the defeatist attitude will contribute to m0aR jocks giving wedgies to nerds and shoving them into lockers and possibly also raise cancer rates in children or something.
Also, a note: this is directed to web developers in general.
(For the following, imagine Homer Simpson prancing around mocking Flanders or something.)
Ooooh, a "stern warning", oh I'm sure those overpaid execs are just shivering in their £ 500 loafers at the thought that they've been issued something with about as much teeth as the "angry letters" the UN issues to random dictators committing whole-scale genocide of some ethnic group they hate while sipping their freshly-squeezed morning orange juice and playing a round of golf with their military buddies in the warm tropical sun. Yeah.
Meh. If the laws don't actually do anything about it, I guess so.
Seriously did Target ever actually change their web site after they were sued? Did they pay out more than a bajillionth of .005% of whatever they earn to the guy who complained?? I don't remember anything happening to the 2000 Sydney Olympics committee, do you? It's like it doesn't matter.
See, just non-rich weenies whining. They can babble 'til foam comes out of their mouths, but you don't have to listen to them. Is this why they aren't working at Google or eBay or Facebook?? Is this why their web sites look like a cyborg designed them??
So I turn it on... and I see...
...a normal twitter page.
WTF. No sharks. No lasers. No Nazis. Nothing is spinning, dancing, glowing, no custom content just for me, not even a clock giving me real time. "It's like they don't want your CPU to get cold or something." Hm...
Yeah. Awesome! This is the profession I want to be associated with! We've never heard of the separation of concerns, or if we did, Jeff Croft just told us it's nothing more than a web developer's wet dream, not to be confused with reality.
I should switch jobs and go clean toilets before I get so depressed I commit suicide or something. Or maybe I should go write an angry letter on teh interwebs.
sg707 — 2010-10-11T16:53:12-04:00 — #4
sg707 — 2010-10-07T12:12:11-04:00 — #5
So you're saying that all Web Application that aims to be Desktop feel are totally wrong? Google Email, Google Doc, Online collaboration tool, online office tools are all wrong?
sg707 — 2010-10-07T14:40:27-04:00 — #6
rguy84 — 2010-10-07T10:59:01-04:00 — #7
A computer program has to do less than what something like it on the web
felgall — 2010-10-07T14:05:35-04:00 — #8
Even if they did work the only benefit they'd have over a downloaded application is that you don't need to download anything in order to use the application.
felgall — 2010-10-06T21:16:04-04:00 — #9
Also with a chat program running on your computer it can use the correct port that chat programs use rather than clogging the web port withchat.
sg707 — 2010-10-06T17:15:02-04:00 — #10
felgall — 2010-10-06T16:18:24-04:00 — #11
stevie_d — 2010-09-27T18:28:55-04:00 — #12
Are you saying your site is as good as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Blogger?
Those sites have succeeded despite poor accessibility, because they have a large/monopoly position combined with a killer application. If you reckon your site meets those targets (and you have a few million in the bank for when you get sued), maybe you can afford not to worry about accessibility.
The reality is that for most of us, we can't afford the luxury of turning away potential visitors by laziness or a lack of consideration for their needs. When I write a website, I want it to appeal and be accessible to as many people as possible - and sometimes that means putting in a little extra effort to provide a more accessible route than the hi-tech one that I direct most people to.
felgall — 2010-09-27T17:49:01-04:00 — #13
sperlock — 2010-09-27T17:44:10-04:00 — #14
alexdawson — 2010-10-21T08:43:29-04:00 — #15
Time for me to get my two cents in I guess (as I'm all about accessibility).
3) Regarding accessibility. With the large sites, it does seem crazy to dump such a potentially large proportion of individuals who may have scripting disabled as non-customers however this goes on all the time. Millions of people suffer disabilities of some sort yet only around 2% (approx) of websites even meet the basic accessibility standards (like WCAG AA), because many sites simply don't understand the disabled they ignore them and hope they go away (discrimination exists online, as offline). While the web is getting better the unfortunate consequences are that we live in a society where the Facebook's of the world are perfectly happy to impose restrictions on their visitors even if they lose a number of people purely because they have plenty more visitors where those came from.
4) As for your assumption sg707, it's partly right and partly wrong. If your website is non-commercial or not a public entity (as in you're not making any money and you're not providing an important public service) your liability as far as disability law is somewhat restricted (though that's not to say that you couldn't be legally pursued to make your site compliant if you were found to be purposefully discriminating against them - which obtrusive scripting could qualify as). In addition, those who are disabled are more likely to go to your competition than simply go after you. What I would say though is that killing 10% of your potential audience (with the % of disabled individuals on top) by simply using scripting which could be made unobtrusive is like shooting yourself in the foot. Not only do you leave yourself open to potential lawsuits (if someone really was offended by the obvious discrimination), you're literally saying that you really don't want every visitor you could have.
PS: The Federal appeals court did rule that web publishers were not required to comply with the ADA, however that has now been resolved since the adaptation of the ADA to further include (explicitly) web related services. The ADA alike many disability laws were seriously out of date as when they were written the only concerns were offline stuff (or government works online AKA Section 508), now that is no longer an issue. Almost all anti-discrimination laws mention the web and in addition, you don't only have the ADA to worry about... if your website is viewed (for example) by an individual from the UK, you could be sued under British law for violating a citizen of this countries rights not to be discriminated against (and as your site is publicly visible to the UK you're liable as you're technically trading here too.
You are not going to have the Web Standards Evangelical Movement's black-clad jack-booted ninja storm troopers break into your bedroom in the night-time and drag you away because you were making millions with your site that only works for 89% of the population (isn't that a pretty big majority??).
Laws aren't perfect, people get away with murder, it doesn't change the fact that businesses are hurting themselves (intentionally or otherwise), their visitor numbers, their potential profit margins (million dollar button goes here) and violating the law still gives us hardcore nuts to call everyone else a criminal
jQuery is proof enough that if you make any technology simple enough for a newbie to take control of, they'll abuse it to the point of insanity
stomme_poes — 2010-10-25T04:08:10-04:00 — #16
Off-topic and cool: http://stacybleeks.com/facebook_tutorials.html
yeah still needs JS on bleh
rguy84 — 2010-10-25T09:24:37-04:00 — #17
That is it, I am professing my love to you now :lol: That is one of the best things i've read evar.
stomme_poes — 2010-10-12T09:36:47-04:00 — #18
For those, blame should go to a programmer if something is broken.
So I'm pretty sure Andy was unaware of it:
http://stommepoes.nl/twitgoogle.png (some of those pages are straight twitter pages while others are apparently pages who redirect to twitter pages)
Some other person's random page had it:
sg707 — 2010-10-12T09:29:17-04:00 — #19
sg707 — 2010-10-06T15:20:01-04:00 — #20
If your browser supports HTML5 then you can play video's on the Youtube w/o Flash.
next page →