Broken Site when JS is turned off

Accessibility
21

What percentage of web reader software can handle JavaScript in a usable manner so that the person listening can tell what changes JavaScript has made to the page?

Dunno, but more screen reader users have Javascript on than off.

However the slightly older readers suck balls at knowing you’ve done something like adding content to the page (typically AJAX). The Big 2 for Windows user a virtual buffer. It’s like an interactive screenshot of the web page. The reader has to know a Javascript event has taken place, and update the virtual buffer in order to show the user what’s changed. If the change is above where the user’s focus is, then it depends on if the reader will bring the user’s focus to the new thing, or tell that there’s something new (there are ARIA attributes that do this, where you can even set the “politeness” level for how much you should bother the user in letting them know there’s been a change on the page)… with older readers, either the buffer isn’t updated, or it is but the user is unaware of any change on the page.

Also a consideration for users with screen magnifyers, who may or may not use a screen reader with the magnifyer… you make a change on some other part of the page, the user is oblivious (because they are viewing a part of your page about the size of a credit card or smaller).

If you sit on a mailing list for those who try to use these various sites with their AT, you’ll find they are often frustrated, but they also find strange and creative ways to get stuff to work for them… also there’s always lots of gossip about what programs can make accessible (or just better on a non-Desktop) various sites (twitter is a good example… like TTYtter, [url=http://quitter.codeplex.com/]Quitter, [url=http://randylaptop.com/software/jawter-2/]Jawter, and [url=http://gabrielcain.com/projects/twitter/]Twitter command-line).

There are programs for YouTube but they do (of course) require Flash player (how else do you play movies? Which is the whole point of YouTube) and Javascript, but the program works way better.

Strangely, logging into YouTube does not require Javascript. Logging out, however, does. Someone didn’t do their server homework. : D

22

An excellent example of where a separate program installed on your computer is a far better alternative.

23

I was curious about people suing the sites for inaccessiblity. Yes, people really did! this was for target.com

Result:
federal appeals court ruled that Web publishers are not required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

24

Also, where are you guys getting 10% of the user not using JavaScript? I doubt this is true. Imagine YouTube, Facebook sacrificing 10% of their revenue? I don’t think they are that stupid.

25

Perhaps for a simple site, you can make it Accessible w/o Javascript. For example, let say you’re making desktop like applications like GDoc and online office applications. Another example is Yahoo Mail. When you try to use it w/ JS turned off it asks you to use the old version of their email application. This is what it says

“Please enable Javascript for your browser, or you can proceed to a non-JavaScript version of Yahoo! Mail with limited functionality.”

So you guys think they are wrong? I believe GMail is done the same way.

26

It is if a blind person decides that you are discriminating against them - then they can take you to court under anti-discrimination laws.

You are right though that a free site where there are dozens of alternative sites that provide the same info/functionality without JavaScript isn’t going to get sued - because most visitors will use one of the more accessible alternative sites instead.

27

No way! I don’t think my sites will ever get that popular…then again…maybe. I don’t think anyone is confident to have many visitors on a start up. Also, I don’t think people can sue over a free site because of accessiblity issue. It’s a free site, don’t like then don’t use it. The reason I bring this up is that by making the site JSFree, it eliminates creative ideas to improve useablity. Look at M$ trying to deploy Office online, think that’s possible w/o using the JavaScript? I think not. Also, I don’t think they’ll get sue over a free service. Still, I do agree that accessibility comes to a picture when there’s legal issue. For example, making an gov’t internal web applications. But, I don’t think it’s a legal issue when it’s available for free public site.

28

Guess there is hope:

Then again, it is light grey text on white, just so those of us without screen readers have to work extra hard to read it, lawlz. Plus the text is microscopic because they’re using that body {font-size: 62.5%} thing.

…damn prissy artsy designers and their “9px light grey on white looks more professional!” meh

29

Adobe Air applications are regular desktop applications some of which just happen to be written in JavaScript. Like all other desktop applications they need read and write access to files on your computer in order to be useful. That some Adobe Air applications also have limited read and write access to the web.

JavaScript running inside Adobe Air is a regular programming language and is all installed by you on your computer and so the security restrictions needed in cnnection with scripts attached to web pages that you download from the web doesn’t apply.

An equivalent would be to suggest that Microsoft Word shouldn’t have read or write access on your computer.

30

Yes, I’d agree with the jQuery statement regarding people are using scripts they don’t have a clue on about what on earth it contains or how it really works. It could be like offering a 11-year old they keys to a car and tell them it’s fine to take it out for a spin on the road, it could work but it’s a potential high risk.

As for JavaScript being the overruling force for the web content (for it [a site] to function) in the “futuristic next generation web” that sounds pretty dire state of affairs and hopefully won’t happen.

31

Terrible attitude to have. Most sites are free. Does that mean if an user uses assistive technology that doesn’t support Javascript, then they should be discriminated against in this way? Remember, these people don’t have as much choice as an able-bodied person does. And they did nothing to deserve being discriminated against.

The reason I bring this up is that by making the site JSFree, it eliminates creative ideas to improve useablity.

You talk about usability. It’s not usable or accessible if someone can’t use it, using things that help them to surf the web (like screen readers, etc). Another point to make, it’s perfectly possible to have an usable site with just HTML (or XHTML) and CSS. Try thinking outside of the box.

Look at M$ trying to deploy Office online, think that’s possible w/o using the JavaScript? I think not. Also, I don’t think they’ll get sue over a free service.

Microsoft still runs a risk of legal threats from organisations (like the RNIB or DRC in the UK) for not making their online store accessible if they get enough complaints.

Still, I do agree that accessibility comes to a picture when there’s legal issue. For example, making an gov’t internal web applications. But, I don’t think it’s a legal issue when it’s available for free public site.

It’s a really poor attitude to have if you’re considering not doing anything about your website’s accessibility unless you’re faced with legal action. And it is a legal issue if you provide a service, be it paid or free.

In fact, certain parts of the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) in the UK is targeted towards organisations and companies/businesses that provide a service (free and paid) online. That covers a huge number of websites. For example, take a look at this quote from WebCredible:

The DRC launched a formal investigation into 1000 websites, of which over 80% were next to impossible for disabled people to use. They issued a stern warning that organisations will face legal action under the DDA and the threat of unlimited compensation payments if they fail to make websites accessible for people with disabilities.

Take Facebook as an example. Facebook is a company, but it provides a mostly free service. It’s possible for them to get sued under UK law, and other major countries have similar laws such as the US and Australia.

If you’re not planning to provide a service then there’s no need to be concerned. But personally I think it shows good character to implement good accessibility in your website anyway, regardless of whether or not you provide a service.

Just my 2p.

32

I thought it was less? This are figures from W3schools with Javascript figures updated till 2008 W3Schools

33

Pretty sure Stephen would point to reply 16.

34

Perhaps this is the point where people draw the line. I think you’re looking at JavaScript to improve the User Interface only. Meaning, it can work without it but if you have it on then usability would increase, right?

However, there are many talented programmers who utilize JavaScript as a functionality. Example would be AJAX chat, real time collaboration w/ other people. Recently, I discover this site https://www.kohive.com/ . To me this site is incredibly innovative. If they had to worry about people disabling JavaScript, then it can never happen.

35

lol that is the funniest thing I heard all day. AJAX raises the inaccessibility bar at times.

36

Look up and published stats on this and you will find that just about all of them quote figures between 5 and 10 percent of visitors not having JavaScript enabled. Those sites at the low end of the range with only 5% not having JavaScript are technical sites about JavaScript itself where you’d expect the percentage to be lower than the average.

What percentage of mobile phones have JavaScript support in the built in briwser?

What percentage of web reader software can handle JavaScript in a usable manner so that the person listening can tell what changes JavaScript has made to the page?

Check the stats based on the server logs of your own server and you will see figures there of somewhere between 5 and 10%. Of course if you only check stats such as Google Analytics then those stats completely exclude any of your visitors without JavaScript and so will be somewhere between 5 and 10% out in the numbers reported.

A large percentage of those without JavaScript have no way to enable it with the way that they are accessing the internet. Insisting that they should be able to is equivalent to insisting that your car should be able to fly if you drive it off a cliff. Their browser has no more capability to run JavaScript than your car does to grow wings.

As far as a site like youtube not supporting people without JavaScript that’s fairly minor considering that there will be a much bigger group unable to view the videos there and that most of those without JavaScript will be a subset of that group. Since those without video capability are not a part of youtubes target market that many of those who can’t use the site don’t have JavaScript is irrelevant. The nature of the site requires a video capable browser and all of those will support JavaScript.

37

“Accessible without Javascript” isn’t the same as “no Javascript”.

On one of my websites, I have the following pieces of Javascript:

  • Smooth scrolling - when you click an in-page link, rather than just flashing straight to the bookmark, it scrolls through the page to get to it. It looks nice, and it helps people orientate themselves within the site - they now know they are still on the same page, rather than the potential confusion of thinking they’ve gone to a new page
    If Javascript is off, internal links work as normal
  • Contact form opens in a new window. I know it isn’t best practice, but my reason for doing so is that it enables me to see what page the visitor was looking at before clicking “Contact me”, and I haven’t found a way to do this without opening in a new window.
    If Javascript is off, the link opens in the same window
  • Making an entire <div> clickable in a ‘teaser’ type page, without the need for lots of ugly <a> elements and effort on getting the styling right.
    If Javascript is off, the headline is clickable with a regular <a href>
  • Hiding unwanted rows in a series of tables.
    If Javascript is off, they just have to look at the whole table
  • Google Ads
    If Javascript is off, they can’t give me money
  • A quick jump navigation list
    If Javascript of off, there is a slightly more long-winded navigation process using regular <a href>s

In all of those cases the use of Javascript enhances the visitor’s experience, but the absence of Javascript doesn’t prevent them from fully accessing all areas of the site.

38

There’s nothing saying that you have to make the site Javascript free. Javascript, however, should be used to enhance a site and not rely on it for something to work. A database could be queried with PHP, and if Javascript is available, then use AJAX instead as an example.