W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 10068] Deprecate noscript

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:01:28 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OWGCm-0008VH-6d@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #6 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-07-06 22:01:27 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > I think the noscript element should be deprecated, as it's better practice for
> > developers to design pages that work without JavaScript and progressively
> > enhance them using JavaScript, than assume JavaScript is supported and then
> > provide some fall back content if it isn't.
> > From the examples of noscript content we find on the Web, most contain
> > unhelpful information such as "Your browser does not support JavaScript". It's
> > good that it's mentioned for backwards compatibility, but it doesn't really
> > serve a useful purpose, and developers should be discouraged from using it.
> 
> I understand this, but progressive enhancement means the default view in the
> unhelpful examples you have found will probably be "Your browser does not
> support JavaScript" (which is a useful purpose in a sense that it's better than
> saying nothing at all).  And in true spirit of shoddy design,
> JavaScript-enabled users may see this message for a split second, before the
> progressive enhancement takes effect, unlike with noscript, which is invisible
> from the start for such users.  Again this can be avoided, for example if CSS
> is available, but noscript takes care of this from the outset.
> 
> In good examples however, we use noscript to replace print buttons and window
> closing buttons, saying things like "please use the print facility provided by
> your browser", or "you may now close this window".  OK, you might be able to
> work around noscript, but noscript is the neatest solution for these cases.
> 
> I'm absolutely aligned with your sentiments incidentally, but I think this
> proposal is dealing with the tool rather than the craftsman.

I have to disagree. I've been working with JavaScript for years, and I've never
seen a good reason for noscript. Especially not when progressive enhancement
showed us a better way to design a web page. 

Progressive enhancement means the page looks and works fine without JavaScript.
Using noscript to say, "Your browser does not support JavaScript" is actually
counter to progressive enhancement. 

You mentioned about saying something like "you can use the print facility..."
That a person can use the browser print facility is a given, whether the page
has JS enabled print or not. They don't need to have text providing this info. 

And if JS is disabled, I doubt we'll have popup windows that need to display a
close button. 

The noscript element is not as bad a design element as blink was--nothing can
be--but it's close.  

I just can't for the life of me think of any good reason for noscript, but I
can think of a whole lot of reasons why it needs to go.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 22:01:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC