Is Javascript bad? Is W3 validation important, or just cross-browser compatibility is? (was: Supermarket repackaging trick again)

[Sy Ali]

On 7/19/06, Chris F.A. Johnson <cfaj-uVmiyxGBW52XDw4h08c5KA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>      It doesn't do any good if the viewer has Javascript turned off.
>
>      90% of the Javascript I see on the web is totally unnecessary.

I'm going to agree.  It's not hard to make alternatives to JavaScript.
 However, there are some really great tricks which can be done with it
that end up being tempting enough to use.. and time consuming enough
to implement that people don't have the time to think about and
develop javascript alternatives.

Yes, the logic does flow backwards.. javascript as a primary tool and
non-javascript is the secondary alternative.  Go figure.

But to be honest.. if a person doesn't have JavaScript then they're
fringe and most developers would consider them unimportant.  On the
other hand, people who have it turned off (like myself) get used to
turning it back on to click navigation links etc..  =/

I don't think it's unreasonable to have JavaScript as a necessary part
of a website, even without an alternative.  However, I still thirst
for a proper blocking tool which can block certain elements of a
specific page, and intelligently allow others.  At the moment I just
have sitewide blocking with temporary unblocking.


And in response to Neil:
> Shouldn't a website be about what the viewer wants.

Nope.  Most websites get built from somebody's vanity.  End-users are
usually an afterthought.

It's like saying that advertising should be about what the consumer
wants.  But most of the time it's about ad agencies scamming a
business into funding an ad.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml