Is it worth it to code different functionality for users with javascript disabled?

Question

I\'m currently building a project and I would like to make use of some simple javascript - I know some people have it disabled to prevent XSS and other things. Should I...

Answer 1

As other have said, it should "degrade gracefully".

In other works, it must work without Javascript (period). It doesn't have to work well. The folks who've disabled Javascript know the limitations that causes and have accepted them. But if you are trying to sell them something, it's important that they can still buy it.

On the site I'm designing, there's a javascript-based fly-out menu. With Javascript off, all the flyouts are always open. It doesn't look as cool as it would with JS, but it can still be used to navigate the site.

Answer 2

Code your web site with support for the bare minimum kind of browser. Then more people can use your site without frustration even if they don't have all the bells and whistles--like Flash, Javascript, and Java--enabled. It may not be practical to continue support for ancient browsers, say Netscape Navigator 4, because a user can be reasonably expected to keep their computer up-to-date. However, features like Javascript, Flash, and Java can be security holes in old or modern browsers, as well as being an annoyance.

Neither of my parents keep Javascript or Flash enabled because they've had too many experiences with them slowing down their already slow connection, crashing their browsers, or being more of an annoyance on sites that use it stupidly (which is a lot of them...) than a useful feature. It's just bad design if, for example, your form requires an AJAX call be made and you can't actually hit a submit button to send the form when Javascript is disabled.

My mother was recently quite frustrated to discover that she is now unable to click through eBay results pages because each one requires Javascript. The only way she can see the next page of results is to turn on Javascript or to show more results per page. Now what reason would there be for page links to require Javascript while the 'results per page' links are just plain links? They should all be plain old HTML links. Maybe Javascript could be used to add some whiz-bang to the navigation, but a user should not be punished with a bad interface for having Javascript disabled. It's stupid on eBay's part, and it causes undue hassle for their users.

Answer 3

For a standard web site that is primarily intended for conveying information, degrade gracefully always.

For web applications:

When building a web application for a standard internet audience, I would keep the three following facts in mind:

1. 95%-97% of potential users will have JavaScript enabled.
2. At times established users will need to access functionality when JavaScript is not available.
3. 3%-5% of potential users will have JavaScript intentionally disabled.

Given fact one, if you believe that building a JavaScript reliant web application will deliver a superior user experience, then by all means do it. Doing so may help you accumulate users.

However, given fact two, you should always provide a means by which your users can access core functionality without JavaScript. Do you need to offer every single feature? Probably not. But a user should be able to get his or her work done. This will keep your users happy when they find themselves temporarily without JavaScript.

Given fact three, I would also provide an in depth tour as an attempt to entice these users to enable JavaScript.

As an aside, one of my most favorite web applications, Remember The Milk follows this approach. Also, Google's Calendar application is unusable without JavaScript. So JavaScript reliant web apps are on the rise and that trend is probably unstoppable. In my opinion this is a good thing.

(Do keep in mind that JavaScript make Accessbility a bigger problem than it is already. Please do make an effort to make your apps usable by those with disabilities.)

Answer 4

I am one of those that uses 'No-Script.' And I can tell you that sites that use javascript and don't work without it enabled is extremely annoying, stackOverflow... No we don't expect it to be very fancy, if I upvote load a new page that says "Thank you."

We expect to be able to use the site with reasonable limitations, don't ever display a page that says JS must be enabled, though, even if the site is crap without it. And yes if your site convinces us to stay we will enable. A function that isn't in common use on the site can also require javascript.

Please note that your site should also look good with no JS or CSS, if nothing else it is good for Bots.

As others have pointed out some phones don't have JS, this is changing but another good reason to have reasonable non-JS. I suggest code with non-JS and add JS after the former works, there are good ways where JS can work with the non-JS layout.

Answer 5

It depends on how much time you have to develop and maintain both solutions, and how much the non-javascript users are worth to you.

My e-commerce site relies heavily on javascript, and in over a year and a half, I've not received a single complaint. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single visitor with javascript disabled in any of logs since I started. That doesn't mean they're not out there. It just means that either (a) they're a tiny percentage, (b) they're not interested in what I'm selling, or (c) both of the above.

Answer 6

Degrade gracefully - make sure the site works without JavaScript, then add bells and whistles for those with JavaScript enabled.