[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming


--- Comment #61 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-24 14:02:28 ---
(In reply to comment #60)
> (In reply to comment #59)
> > There are very distinct differences between deprecating something and making
> > something immediately obsolete.
> It says, "suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming", I don't see how
> those are compatible then.

Please read my note earlier about why the title says what it says. 

> > As such, it's
> > primitive, and used too frequently to provide annoying messages such as, "You
> > don't have JavaScript turned on. Go away."
> This is annoying when the JS functionality can be easily implemented in HTML or
> on the server, but if this is not viable (e.g. arcade games).  Then the only
> option you have is to tell the user they'll need JavaScript if they'd like to
> use the feature.

Certainly shouldn't use noscript for this. There should be an intro page that
describes the game, the rules, and what you need to have to play. 

> If your issue is that the NOSCRIPT element is used too frequently to provide
> this message, whilst I agree this is probably the case, I don't see how not
> having NOSCRIPT would improve it.
> You're treating a technique as a scapegoat.  If it was commonplace for sites to
> provide such annoying messages as a default and use progressive enhancement to
> enable everything, would such messages suck less?  No.  Would PE start to get a
> bad reputation and people advocate that it must not be used?  I hope not.  Is
> the overall user experience any better just because PE was used?  Of course
> not.

We could say the same about font, or any other presentational attribute, can't
we? After all, when we deprecated these items, we were making the techniques
into a scapegoat. Weren't we?

> > Deprecating noscript is saying that every instance of its use has an
> > alternative, better approach. 
> > I bet, if we knew the underlying reasons -- the use cases, you mentioned
> > earlier-- for the use of noscript, in each and every case, we could find an
> > alternative that isn't dependent on noscript.
> Just because it is possible to use PE to upgrade away from the annoying
> message, is no justification for doing so.  Let's face it, using PE from a
> non-functional starting point is just not the spirit of progressive
> enhancement, because there's nothing progressive about it at all.

No justification for doing so? In other words, we should defend crappy
techniques, and sloppy coding? Creating unusable web pages that perform poorly? 

Progressive enhancement is a starting point. It is a design principle. It is a
philosophy, a technique, and an approach to building web pages. You can't get
more "starting point" then this.

> Insisting that if something is possible to do using PE then it must be, is
> going to lead to same abuse of PE that NOSCRIPT receives, or lead people to
> realise that it wasn't NOSCRIPT that was bad after all, it was the web page
> developers.

Sorry, you really lost me here. 

> > Interestingly enough, the proposal to keep noscript should probably be
> > asked for, first, because the hypothesis behind its deprecation is that there
> > is an alternative approach for every use case provided. 
> I don't understand this logic.  Why do we need a proposal to keep something?

Well, they don't have to provide any. Which means that the change proposal
probably is accepted by default. 

> There are probably alternatives to every use case for toasters or the
> ball-point pen, people should definitely not use them.


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, 24 August 2010 14:02:32 UTC