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

[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:20:33 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OpgsD-0004nB-5l@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #73 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-29 12:20:30 ---
(In reply to comment #71)
> (In reply to comment #70)
> > You sure about Google Analytics using noscript? I know that Google discourages the use of noscript[1] because it has been so badly abused. I checked out the code for Google Analytics, and I don't see the use of noscript.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=371b9ed951f93d9d&hl=en
> 
> Google Analytics itself does not use "noscript" (or support JS-stripping or
> JS-disabled scenarios at all) - see my correction in comment #43.
> 
> You're citing a suggestion by a Google Employee for a non-analytics use-case,
> not an official recommendation by Google for all use-cases.
> 

However, Google has been known to penalize the use of noscript, so I think that
this person's opinion is a pretty reliable look at how Google views noscript. 

> Google themselves *do* provide code that uses "noscript", including for
> analytics use-cases such as conversion tracking:
> 
> http://adwords.google.com/support/aw/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=115794
>

And the use, as Gez pointed out, could be altered so as to not use noscript.
And I also believe that one of the NoScript functions it provides is to strip
out this type of tracking use, anyway, because it's considered invasive. 

Being able to track people isn't necessarily a _good_ use of the technology, to
my way of thinking.

> They also employ "noscript" on the Google Search page, the Gmail inbox, and the
> very forum page you cited - though not necessarily in ways I would recommend!
>

If I remember correctly, Google also uses font and a host of other interesting
elements. 

The point I was making is that Google has penalized the use of noscript in the
past, and does look on its use with suspicion. 

> Also note the rather idiosyncratic use of "noscript" in Web Optimizer:
> 
> http://www.google.com/support/websiteoptimizer/bin/answer.py?answer=61149#m3
> 
> http://www.google.com/support/websiteoptimizer/bin/answer.py?hl=en-au&answer=64418
> 
> This blogpost explains how its use in Web Optimizer works, in case anyone's
> wondering:
> 
> http://www.gwotricks.com/2009/05/server-side-dynamic-section-variations.html

I do note your concerns, and if I write a change proposal, will include
references to same. I'm sure if anyone else writes a change proposal, they'll
also appreciate your concerns, and your examples. 

I hope that you might consider writing a proposal to keep the element active.

-- 
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 Sunday, 29 August 2010 12:20:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:22 UTC