Java Script (etc.) and Web design

[Mart]

JavaScript can be an issue if it has been turned off in the browser. I note some do this.

[haakoo]

Hi Mart,

There was a discussion about the rules of building sites here a short time ago
There was a mentioning whether you should use all the rules or not.
It wasn't conclusive
If you want to make sites for "everybody" then stop in this line of work,
You must know what the vast majority will have installed or is using,
so 94% using javascript gives me an okay to use it.
Most people get a computer and install their software and that's it.

If one really wants you can put viruses in jpg's
Does this keep you from using pics on your sites,if this is answered yes
then you got 1 page with hyperlinks to what?
You'd better be off to post it through the mail.
(this isn't a complaint about your using only hyperlinks or what you do with your site)

In Dutch there's a saying;"Meten is weten"
This means roughly;if you want to be sure about something,analyze and measure it.
This is why I posted the browser statistics page.

So do benefit from it(safest browsing is NOT browsing)

Hans

[Mart]

Point taken Hans ..but if you frequent security forums quite a bit (that's me), this is where you might find those who run with JavaScript disabled, or use Firefox's NoScript extension. Also, although the percentage listed in the web page you linked to may be small, I suppose it must still represent a good number of people. I appreciate that you cannot please all of the people all of the time though.

Anyway, I don't know why I wouldn't have JavaScript in my site. Nobody visits it unless directed to it. It's not that important if people don't view it. It was just a pastime for a year or so. In fact, I don't browse myself with JavaScript disabled because some page content of sites may not show.

I prefer to let the browser run unfettered inside a sandbox. This has saved me on one occasion where a link clicked on redirected the browser to a site with malware present. I've no doubt this wouldn't have happened if JavaScript had been disabled. However, the problem was contained within the sandbox, so no damage was done. Emptying the sandbox deleted the browsing session.

[haakoo]

Hi Mart,

Only wanted to say,that me being a person who likes to make nice looking things for people to watch(that's why we're here on TalkGraphics)
I'd like my audience to be as big as possible,so i use javascript and flash
to show of the things i want(at last I'm starting to)
Indeed you want to keep it as secure as possible for you as developer and for you as watching things yourself.

Hans

[Unregistered]

I'd like my audience to be as big as possible,so i use javascript and flash

By using java and flash you will actually have less visitors. You can't say "Oh 90% uses java script so I should have java script on my site" or "90% have Flash installed so I should be using Flash."

You don't get more visitors because you support it, that's pure nonsense! Lots of people have Flash installed because some sites require it. However, at the same time people tend to avoid sites that are heavily "flashed".
Take my wife, she ignores 90% of all flash sites and only has flash installed because our youngest wants to play a flash game on her computer now and then.

Then you have those people who have indeed Javascript turned off. Then you have the issue of search engines that don't like flash and java script, so you will suffer in your search engine rankings, which again will also have a negative effect on your traffic.

[pauland]

By using java and flash you will actually have less visitors. You can't say "Oh 90% uses java script so I should have java script on my site" or "90% have Flash installed so I should be using Flash."

You don't get more visitors because you support it, that's pure nonsense! Lots of people have Flash installed because some sites require it. However, at the same time people tend to avoid sites that are heavily "flashed".

I take your point about flash and search engine ranking, though there are strategies to mitigate that problem.

The flaw in your anti-flash stance is that many people (myself included) are positively drawn to *some* flash sites because of their design or interaction.

It might be that a stroll to the fwa (favourite website awards) http://www.thefwa.com/ might be interesting to see how many static websites are in there that don't use flash or Ajax (actionscript).

I would argue that you and your wifes web usage is atypical of the web these days, though no doubt you might say the same of me!

Despite my pro-flash stance, having flash on a site doesn't make it good (there are some awful flash sites, as you have alluded to) and conversely there are some excellent plain html sites (and we all know of many bad ones).

You don't have to use flash or javascript to have a good website, but if you are skilled and with an artistic or design talent you can have a superb one with a technology such as flash.

Sometimes I have built websites that specifically don't have flash or javascript. Usually this is because of budget or time constraints. It's easier in many ways to build a website just using plain html and a bit of css, but the end result is not going to be very dynamic and will inflict the user with page refreshes all the time. It's easy to be bland with html.

Don't get me wrong, the customers are happy with their html sites it does the job within their budget and is far better than having no website at all.

It can be argued that flash and javascript just add froth to the proceedings and have little value.

What's the problem with straightforward with plain old html websites without bells and whistles? There's no problem, but consider this: The web world doesn't exist outside of the world at large and ultimately this is all about communication (and sometimes entertainment).

Take a look at a few TV programmes. Imagine those animated graphics on the news - how effective would it be if it was replaced by plain text for us to read? What about that film clip on the news? imagine that replaced by a photograph. How about wallace and grommit? would you prefer some still pictures with text to read?

I can sense uproar at comparing the TV with a web page, but in terms of communication the same principles apply to visual mediums. It used to be that on the web we didn't have a choice about animated graphics and video, just because the technology didn't support it. With the advent of flash and broadband technologies (to name but two), there's little barrier to creating a web experience that is as effective as television rather than create the online equivalent to a newspaper or newsletter.

In conclusion, after redressing the anti-flash view, I would imagine that most people on the talkgraphics forums will be best served with html and a bit of css, because it gives effective results and is achievable with a basic web skillset. Getting good results with flash requires a greater personal investment in learning flash skills to go that stage further. It's perfectly possible to make your site worse by adding bad flash content to it.

Whether you use html and/or flash or any other technology, the overriding consideration that will decide how effective and/or entertaining is going to be artistic and graphic design talent.

Whatever you choose, good luck with it and think beyond the statistics and prejudice. Whether you will use flash on your own website (or not), make sure you install the flash player so that you don't get stuck with the old style web.

Paul

[haakoo]

Hi,

My English was a bit off here;
I know you don't generate more traffic but does it look better,no
In conjunction with Pauland statement,I'm on a graphics forum and as far as i know people here are making beautiful things they want to show.
So,IMHO, i think you must make it stand out to show it.

Hans

[RTK]

Copy of thread, from here: http://www.talkgraphics.com/showthread.php?t=22865

Risto

[juergen]

How about a different approach ?

If you want to show off today with a cutting edge website, present state of the art of web technology, the discussion is worthless as you probably build a site with so called web 2.0 technology which means it won't work at all without JavaScript.

If your customer has data heavy pages, you will not get far with just html and css.

If you want to show off your skills with beautiful "about us" pages that comply with every standard and support every browser on earth, you probably just use html and css and dig deep into your css knowledge chest to make that happen.

I can move on with this if anybody wants me to but I am sure you get the point.

The technologies you (have to) use, depend on various points which I list in no specific order:

target audience
required features (complete render of pages or need to update single details without reload to reduce server load for example)
available technology (of you or your customer)
available skills ..

Never forget the target audience. I have seen many proposal for websites that were beautiful in every designers and marketing folks eye being moved to the waste bin because their target audience had no eye for graphics and only wanted to present as many facts,stock rates or other data on a single page.
They might want pure text layout, only designed to find the vital information quick and without much need to search.

Juergen

PS. I find my posting pretty incomplete and you can easily write a book about this. In one sentence I would reply to the topic with: use the right technologies for the given situation.

[haakoo]

Hi Juergen,

Couldn't agree with you more,
Take the tools that provide the best solution for each customer and preferred audience.

Hans