JavaScript is now “Standard”
After participating in a lengthy Twitter discussion with John O’Nolan (twitter @JohnONolan), it has been agreed that JavaScript is “standard.”
So fellow web designers, after a long discussion I put it to you that JS is now “standard” and should be supported like CSS, not like Flash. – @JohnONolan
I wrote a previous article about discontinuing support for Internet Explorer 6, and I think a discussion about JavaScript is in the same category.
The big question asked is why would you need to develop a site that works without JavaScript?
In short, you wouldn’t. It simply does not make sense with the current online environment. Take a look below for a few examples why.
1. Facebook uses it
The most used social networking site and currently one of the most elite sites on the web, nearly everyone uses Facebook. Try to load Facebook after disabling JavaScript in your browser and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
If Facebook relies so heavily on JavaScript and a huge percentage of internet users are on Facebook, does it really make sense for your site to require proper usability without JavaScript?
2. Everyone has it
Ok, I’m sure you will all jump at the opportunity to yell and scream because not 100% of people have JavaScript enabled, so I’ll backtrack a little and say that at least 95% of people have it.
My argument for this is the same as that for supporting IE6. If a user is browsing the web in IE6, or in this case browsing with JavaScript disabled, he/she is not my target market.
3. What is next?
If JavaScript is on par with CSS, as John mentions above, what is next? Do you think Flash will soon gain universal support? Should it?
Right now, Flash is the only way to accurately know exactly what the user is seeing. It does not matter what browser they are in, what fonts they have installed or even what OS they use, Flash is Flash.
As long as their Flash is up to date!
Can’t forget that key point. What are your thoughts on JavaScript and Flash in the future of the web?
Carson Shold is a freelance graphic and web designer born in Victoria, BC and living in London, Ontario. He is a ‘for hire‘ designer that wants to help your business stand out – the right way. You can connect with him and his thoughts on twitter or check out his portfolio at carsonshold.com.
Facebook is a bad example, very few website owners can or should compare themselves to a company/site like that simply because they’re worlds apart.
Judgments on your site technology support should be made on an individual basis depending on the site and its visitors. If like me you work with very corporate companies where JS is all too likely to be disabled by a paranoid sys admins (and IE is used by 90%+ users… *sigh*) then it would be foolish not to make sure the site works with JS disabled.
As I have already mentioned on Twatter as far as I’m concerned Javascript should — in most cases — be used as a layer to enhance content, just like CSS. Relying on JS for vital elements of a site such as its content is to rely on yet another technology, another possible weak spot.
Of course if 98% of your visitors have JS enabled then go crazy all you like with it!
I agree, Ryan, that corporate company websites don’t need JavaScript. By no means am I saying that every site should use it.
My argument, as you mention in your last line, is that such a large percentage of users do have it enabled that JavaScript should not be seen as something that must be used as cautiously as people may seem.
Ah ok
“it has been agreed” makes it sound like there is some overarching consensus about it. You should have said “we agreed”. Anyways, that’s just a minor thing.
I still agree with Ryan in that your website should not rely on Javascript. At the very least, include some noscript tags. At best, make your sites degrade nicely.
I enjoyed checking out your blog today and I will be back to check it more in the future so please keep up your good quality work. I love the colors that you chose, you are quite talented!
Facebook is a bad example, very few website owners can or should compare themselves to a company/site like that simply because they’re worlds apart.
Judgments on your site technology support should be made on an individual basis depending on the site and its visitors. If like me you work with very corporate companies where JS is all too likely to be disabled by a paranoid sys admins (and IE is used by 90%+ users… *sigh*) then it would be foolish not to make sure the site works with JS disabled.
As I have already mentioned on Twatter as far as I’m concerned Javascript should — in most cases — be used as a layer to enhance content, just like CSS. Relying on JS for vital elements of a site such as its content is to rely on yet another technology, another possible weak spot.
Of course if 98% of your visitors have JS enabled then go crazy all you like with it!