[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #23 from Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>  2010-07-08 08:34:31 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> And the game page can have a nice block at the top saying what people need to
> do to play the game (have JavaScript, browsers that support certain
> functionality, CSS turned on, and so on). That is not unreasonable for a game.

No thanks.  It certainly is unreasonable, especially at the top.  Most visitors
don't know what JavaScript or CSS is let alone how to turn it on.  It's much
more reasonable to just list supported browsers on a troubleshooting page, and
have fallback content for instances where the required technologies are not
available.  Gaming interfaces strive to be clean with optimal use of space.

> Noscript was a component of graceful degradation. Progressive enhancement is
> based on the concept of creating the page without recourse to JavaScript and
> then progressively enhance it to include JavaScript-enabled options. Based on
> this, noscript makes no sense, because it is a fallback technique. In
> progressive enhancement, there is no "fallback". If anything, it's a "fall
> forward" type of concept. 

Be careful.  The only difference between PE and GD is perspective.  PE is
considered to be layering an optional technology over the top of another in a
non-obtrusive fashion.  GD is having a usable experience when such technology
is not available.  Therefore GD is a benefit of PE.  There is no X is a DG
component whereas Y is a PE component.  

I'm not advocating the use of noscript for GD, for GD, use PE.  I'm advocating
the use of noscript to provide non-functional fallback content, in pretty much
the same way as the alt attribute is for images.

PE is invalid for fallback content.  You can't enhance fallback content, that's
not enhancement, that's replacement, why go to all that trouble?  I assert that
one must enhance something that is functional in order to claim PE, if it
doesn't GD, it isn't PE.

> Don't have to take my word, look for articles such as the following:
> http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/

The relevant noscript example in this argument is an example of bad
craftsmanship, a situation where noscript should not be used, not a reason for
removing noscript from existence.  

The irrelevant noscript example is an example of disgraceful degradation
(therefore is not discussing GD), where functionality that can be provided
without using JavaScript isn't.  This is an example of bad craftsmanship.

> Noscript is a fundamental element of graceful degradation.

If you beleive that, then I understand why you want it removed.  The noscript
element should not be used for GD, just non-functional fallback content only.

> Actually, I think we would have. People would not have relied on what is
> nothing more than a lazy programming trick. They would have had to ensure their
> pages worked regardless of whether scripting was enabled or not.

That doesn't explain the abundance of JavaScript dependant applications that do
not use noscript at all.

-- 
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 Thursday, 8 July 2010 08:34:34 UTC