On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
>>> think
>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented
>>> hack
>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* "old"
>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and
>>> then
>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know
>>> how
>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of sense.
>>
>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There
>> aren't that many of you.
>>
>
> There are enough.

Apparently not. http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/

I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS disabled.

> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or have
> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the transistor.

No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.

It's like saying you think cell phones are evil, and refuse to get one.  But then complain that there are no pay phones for you to use, and demand businesses install pay phones in case people like you want to use them.

That being said, I found it quite funny that wikipedia last year "blacked out" itself using javascript.  I just so happened to want to quote something from wikipedia, and noticed the site came up, then had a black page put over it.  I just disabled javascript, and could happily use the site, posting the link (of course, I had to mention it would only work tomorrow when the blackout ended).

-Steve

>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There
>>> aren't that many of you.
>>>
>>
>> There are enough.
>
> Apparently not. http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>
> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS disabled.

 I use NoScript, so by default my JS is disabled for 99% of the sites I go to. That means you'll give up on me? Hmm :(

>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or have
>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the transistor.
>
> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.

 Unfortunately I need to disagree with you there. JS although is nice sometimes, I find more often a pain in the butt rather than a help. NoScript shows on quite a few sites that they have some 10 or 20 sites they reference JS scripts from, which doesn't make sense. half of those sites tend to be statistic gathering sites, which I don't particularly trust. Actually I don't trust a lot of sites.

 Plus I'm a little more anal about what does and does not run on my computer; Last think I need when I open a Page is it loads ten or twenty extra things I don't care about, takes up resources I don't want to give up, uses more memory, and for a tiny convenience, or trying to make it more an 'application' experience rather than a web Page. In my mind, JS should be used to help you where HTML and CSS cannot go. Checking inputs for a form post, some menus, etc.

 I have refused to go to some sites that require you to disable NoScript or Adblocker Plus; I'm willing to allow access past those features it for my one or two visits but I refuse to disable/remove it. I just feel safer that way. I wonder if I didn't have it, how many gigs I would be waiting and using for ads and other useless crap.

> It's like saying you think cell phones are evil, and refuse to get one.  But then complain that there are no pay phones for you to use, and demand businesses install pay phones in case people like you want to use them.

 Maybe... I consider myself simple and practical; I use features and items that serve their purpose (Usually specific). I enjoy a simple cell phone, no bells, no whistles. Give me access to dialing a number, hold a small list of names and numbers I dial recently or enter in, time and date. That's all I ever want. Instead they are pushing cell phones that are actually mini-computers (Android and smart phones); Nothing wrong with that I guess, but I just want a phone, nothing special.

 In the same regard you can compare that people could refuse to use a phone booth unless it has a computer hooked up, internet access, use it to check email and browse while you talk, or doesn't allow you to send text messages and enter a quarter to send it, and doesn't have a camera you can snap a picture of yourself to show how good or drunk you are to your friends.

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:19:49 -0400, Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Apparently not. http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS disabled.
>
>   I use NoScript, so by default my JS is disabled for 99% of the sites I go to. That means you'll give up on me? Hmm :(

Yep.  Sorry to be harsh about it, but if you really don't want to use my application the way it's intended, I have no way of helping you.

>> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.
>
>   Unfortunately I need to disagree with you there. JS although is nice sometimes, I find more often a pain in the butt rather than a help. NoScript shows on quite a few sites that they have some 10 or 20 sites they reference JS scripts from, which doesn't make sense. half of those sites tend to be statistic gathering sites, which I don't particularly trust. Actually I don't trust a lot of sites.

In the case of my web apps, they do *not* pull JS from other sites.  I understand and sympathize with your rationale.  It's just not enough, however, to make web developers who want their site to appear a certain way care about the market share that your opinion represents.  I'm perfectly willing to lose 1-2% of users in order to *not* test browsers in all kinds of weird configurations.  It's the same reason most web sites test only with the major browsers.

>> It's like saying you think cell phones are evil, and refuse to get one.  But then complain that there are no pay phones for you to use, and demand businesses install pay phones in case people like you want to use them.
>
>   Maybe... I consider myself simple and practical; I use features and items that serve their purpose (Usually specific). I enjoy a simple cell phone, no bells, no whistles. Give me access to dialing a number, hold a small list of names and numbers I dial recently or enter in, time and date. That's all I ever want. Instead they are pushing cell phones that are actually mini-computers (Android and smart phones); Nothing wrong with that I guess, but I just want a phone, nothing special.
>
>   In the same regard you can compare that people could refuse to use a phone booth unless it has a computer hooked up, internet access, use it to check email and browse while you talk, or doesn't allow you to send text messages and enter a quarter to send it, and doesn't have a camera you can snap a picture of yourself to show how good or drunk you are to your friends.

This situation (where payphones were obsolete) existed long before the smartphone craze.

-Steve

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
>>>> think
>>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly implemented
>>>> hack
>>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough* "old"
>>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and
>>>> then
>>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know
>>>> how
>>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of
>>>> sense.
>>>
>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There aren't that many of you.
>>>
>>
>> There are enough.
>
> Apparently not. http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>
> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS disabled.
>

Does nobody understand basic statistics?

First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.

Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately represent *all* non-JS users:

A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results biased towards the "use JS" side.

B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs.

C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS users in the first place.


>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or have
>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the
>> transistor.
>
> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere.  It's not worth my time to cater to you.
>

And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site.

On 3/12/12 6:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Does nobody understand basic statistics?

I don't see evidence they don't.

> First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the
> seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large
> population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.

This is a truism. Yeah, 1% is huge but the rest is 99 times huger. It's a reasonable business decision to forgo 1-2% reach (and therefore potential profit) if the cost of that reach is larger than the projected increase in the profit.


Andrei

On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:04:17 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Does nobody understand basic statistics?
>
> First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the
> seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large
> population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.

And 1-2% is still 1/100 to 1/50 of all users, no matter how large the total number is. Arguing in absolute numbers makes no sense if you don't even know in advance how large your target audience is. What point are you trying to make here?

> B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you
> know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling
> JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it
> *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs.
>
> C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have
> questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS
> users in the first place.

Stats are pretty much the same (98.5% among ~10000 »unique« visitors over the last months) for my programming-centric blog, where I added a non-JS tracking pixel precisely because I was interested in whether the figures would different for tech-y sites.

Besides, I am totally in favor of not needlessly required JS, but it does have its legitimate uses.

David

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jjlvdh$1to3$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.wa2pimkxeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:27:30 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.wa1432xjeav7ka@localhost.localdomain...
>>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:41:53 -0500, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You know what I think it is (without actually looking at the code): I
>>>>> think
>>>>> they tried to do some highly misguided and even more poorly
>>>>> implemented
>>>>> hack
>>>>> (which they no-doubt thought was clever) for dealing with *cough*
>>>>> "old"
>>>>> *cough* browsers by inserting a meta redirect to a hardcoded URL, and
>>>>> then
>>>>> used JS to disable the meta redirect. If that's the case, I don't know
>>>>> how
>>>>> the fuck they managed to convince themselves that make one drop of
>>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>> It could be that they don't care to cater to people who hate JS.  There aren't that many of you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are enough.
>>
>> Apparently not. http://developer.yahoo.com/blogs/ydn/posts/2010/10/how-many-users-have-javascript-disabled/
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to give up on 1-2% of Internet users who have JS disabled.
>>
>
> Does nobody understand basic statistics?
>
> First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by the seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.
>
> Secondly, I don't believe for a minute that such figures accurately represent *all* non-JS users:
>
> A. Most non-JS users *do* occasionally switch JS on when they need to via NoScript, etc. So that right there is *guaranteed* to leave the results biased towards the "use JS" side.
>
> B. Look at audience: That's *Yahoo*. How many of the technical people you know use Yahoo? Yahoo is primarily an "Average Joe" site, but disabling JavaScript is a power-user thing. It's not a representative sample, and it *certainly* can't be assumed to be applicable to something like Dr. Dobbs.
>
> C. Things such as Google Analytics are based on JS. So right there I have questions about whether or not such things accurately record all non-JS users in the first place.
>
>
>>> And it's beside the point anyway. Things that don't need
>>> JS sholdn't be using JS anyway, regardless of whether you hate it or
>>> have
>>> enough brain damage to think it's the greatest thing since the
>>> transistor.
>>
>> No, it *is* the point.  As a web developer, javascript is used by the vast majority of users, so I assume it can be used.  If you don't like that, I guess that's too bad for you, you may go find content elsewhere. It's not worth my time to cater to you.
>>
>
> And it's not worth my time to use your piece of shit excuse for a site.
>

And besides, you're still conventiently ignoring the fact that sites which require JS typically provide a *worse* user experience then sites that don't use it, *even when JS is enabled*.

So you want to say "fuck off" to the millions of people in that "measly" 1-2% just for the sake of making your site *worse* for the other 98%? Fine, be a self-defeating idiot, if you insist.

And before you say "No! They like it better with the JS-ness!", I'll point out that most people only *think* they know what they like. Don't forget what happened when Vladimir's D forums were posted on Reddit: All those JS-using redditers (reddit requires JS for most features, so it's safe to assume most reddit users are JS users - non-JS users are likely to avoid reddit) who *thought* reddit had a reasonable user-experience were absoutely *floored* by how "fast" the D forums were. (Personally, I find the D forms to be normal speed and reddit to be absurdly slow.) JS-users *prefer* non-JS sites - they're just too brainwashed to realize it.

Notice too how those forums load entire pages faster than AJAXy sites like GitHub do their beloved partial reloads.

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote in message news:jjm057$1val$1@digitalmars.com...
> On 3/12/12 6:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Does nobody understand basic statistics?
>
> I don't see evidence they don't.
>
>> First of all, 1-2% is a *hell* of a *LOT* of people. Don't be fooled by
>> the
>> seemingly small number: It's a percentage and it's out of a *very* large
>> population. So 1-2% is still *huge*.
>
> This is a truism. Yeah, 1% is huge but the rest is 99 times huger. It's a reasonable business decision to forgo 1-2% reach (and therefore potential profit) if the cost of that reach is larger than the projected increase in the profit.
>

You can rationalize it by hiding behind the "it's business!" veil all you want, but at the end of the day, you're still saying "fuck you" to millions of people.

"David Nadlinger" <see@klickverbot.at> wrote in message news:zlzlrudlbyiwwmgqqftp@forum.dlang.org...
>
> Besides, I am totally in favor of not needlessly required JS, but it does have its legitimate uses.
>

*Using* it is fine as long as you don't go overboard. The issue is *requiring* it when it obviously isn't needed.

On Monday, 12 March 2012 at 23:23:13 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> at the end of the day, you're still saying "fuck you" to millions of people.

...for little to no reason. It's not like making 99% of
sites work without javascript takes *any* effort.

Indeed, going without javascript is often desirable
anyway, since no JS sites are /much/ faster than script
heavy sites.