Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jul 2007 19:50 UTC, submitted by juno_106
Opera Software "Back in January we added the ability to report usage of different features and preferences so we could learn more about how the browser is used in general. First we invited you, our weekly users to help us and in 9.2 we started asking one in 100 users if they want to participate. We would like to share some of our findings with you."
Thread beginning with comment 253592
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Website designers who cannot create a site that can gracefully degrade, are just bad programmers, enough said.
"""

To put it bluntly, that's just stupid. Increasing the complexity of a program by doing everything 2 ways, first the convoluted way for people who refuse to use modern technology, and then the simpler and cleaner way using the capabilities of the browser that 99% of people have turned on (according to the article) and leaving both code paths in is *not* good programming practice. (Unless you get paid by the hour, of course.)

If it means that assistive technologies need to get smarter and deal with the fact that browsers are smart clients and not dumb terminals then so be it.

P.S. I would hardly call the programmers behind Google Docs and Spreadsheets "bad programmers".

Edited 2007-07-07 01:13

Reply Parent Score: 5

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Javascript is not a secure and reliable solution for form validation. Validation has to be done server side as well before going into the DB. Therefore accepting a form only by javascript is dumb, when you can fall back to the action attribute on the Form to submit the same data through post and validate with the same code.

It is not increasing the complexity of everything by two, that's a total over exaggeration. I manage absolutely fine with a well written validation class that can accept both methods equally.

And people still don't understand. 99% of people may have Javascript on, but those disabled people who don't - have to have access by law. Can I say that again, as this is the third time someone has failed to realise that. It's the law. Not supporting graceful degrading (something that's been possible since 1996), is not worth 20'000 to me, comprende?

Edited 2007-07-07 01:18

Reply Parent Score: 5

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Javascript is not a secure and reliable solution for form validation.
"""

Duh? Of course not. That's not what I'm talking about and you know it. But just to clarify so that I don't get more words put into my mouth, I'm not talking about fancy effects, fade ins, glows, beam ins and beam outs, or any of that silliness either. Nor am I talking about abuses of javascript by advertisers. (Though I find that adblock handles all that admiriably without throwing the baby out with the bathwater as turning off javascript does.)

What I *am* talking about is actual functionality. I am talking about web *apps* as opposed to web pages, as I mentioned in my original post.

By all means, code within the local laws, though. Even the poor ones that miss the mark.

But outside of the letter of the law, I really can't see banning web applications simply because assistive technologies need a kick in the pants.

Edited 2007-07-07 01:33

Reply Parent Score: 5

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Google Docs and Spreadsheets is a very good point ;)
There's no reason an e-commerce site cannot be accessible to disabled people. However, Google Docs and Spreadsheets have to dynamically update content in cells and perform live calculations. This can't be done without Javascript.

That's not to say that degrading gracefully on e-commerce sites is irrelevant, but that web2.0 apps that try to mimick their counterparts are struck by the limitations of using barely appropriate languages and technologies to create something that looks like a spreadsheet when a real Excel spreadsheet would be accessible to disabled persons through the OS support (like Windows Narrator).

It's going to take a looong time (especially with IE trailing behind), but eventually these web apps will be accessible through improved accessibility hooks in browsers, and new Javascript standards.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
web2.0 apps that try to mimick their counterparts are struck by the limitations of using barely appropriate languages and technologies to create something that looks like a spreadsheet
"""

Javascript, despite its reputation, is really not a bad language. It's well designed and even rather Python like in its own way. (Brendan Eich likes Python.) It suffered from premature standardization, and could use some extra oomph in the area of performance, though. (Maybe there is a VM in its future. :-)

And many people who "use" it do so in a "recipe" fashion, pasting in snippets from Google searches without really understanding. I expect that many people are surprised that O'Reilly's "Javascript: The Definitive Guide" is a thousand pages, thinking that Javascript is mostly about back buttons and onchange form submissions. :-)

P.S. Sorry if my previous post came off as abrupt. I could have worded a few things better. I'm very excited about the potential of web applications.

Reply Parent Score: 5

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, we're kinda talking about 2 different things then. I'm not saying we do everything in javascript and if it doesn't work for people, oh well. Things that make sense to be done in JS are done in JS. They are not necessary features. Things like drag&drop, opening/collapsing menus (menu is open by default).

We do have things that require purchasing on our sites, and those work completely w/o javascript, because it makes no sense to use javascript in those cases.

In summary, we use javascript for enhancements to the page. Things that aren't necessary to view the page.

Edited 2007-07-07 12:12

Reply Parent Score: 2