Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few 
days -before- this post;

Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?

-dE|_---

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:37:07 -0000, "dE|_"
 wrote:

>Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few 
>days -before- this post;
>
>Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?

Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work, as
should be expected, but all seems ok otherwise.

My neighbour's website menu doesn't work at all if JS is disabled, but
he knows everything there is to know about everything. If I were to
tell him today is Thursday he'd probably find some way to deny it.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.  http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

"Paul Herber"  wrote in message 
news:sbmlo4tohdka98ppsgmp573uppdvhmus27@news.gradwell.net...
: On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:37:07 -0000, "dE|_"
:  wrote:
:
: >Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few
: >days -before- this post;
: >
: >Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?

Must admit that I didn't...

:
: Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work, 
as
: should be expected, but all seems ok otherwise.
:
: My neighbour's website menu doesn't work at all if JS is disabled, 
but
: he knows everything there is to know about everything. If I were to
: tell him today is Thursday he'd probably find some way to deny it.
:

Other than as a 'helper' (for disobedient browsers) I can't see why 
anyone needs to use JavaScript dependant navigation, css can and 
should be used whilst level two menu headers should always lead to a 
page if selected (or any 'helper' script fails to deploy), even if 
that page does no more than list that sections sub menu URL's IYSWIM. 
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong street?...
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:14:15 -0000, "Jerry"
<mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:

>
>"Paul Herber"  wrote in message 
>news:sbmlo4tohdka98ppsgmp573uppdvhmus27@news.gradwell.net...
>: On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:37:07 -0000, "dE|_"
>:  wrote:
>:
>: >Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few
>: >days -before- this post;
>: >
>: >Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?
>
>Must admit that I didn't...
>
>:
>: Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work, 
>as
>: should be expected, but all seems ok otherwise.
>:
>: My neighbour's website menu doesn't work at all if JS is disabled, 
>but
>: he knows everything there is to know about everything. If I were to
>: tell him today is Thursday he'd probably find some way to deny it.
>:
>
>Other than as a 'helper' (for disobedient browsers) I can't see why 
>anyone needs to use JavaScript dependant navigation, css can and 
>should be used whilst level two menu headers should always lead to a 
>page if selected (or any 'helper' script fails to deploy), even if 
>that page does no more than list that sections sub menu URL's IYSWIM. 
>Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong street?...

The incredible thing about my aforementioned neighbour's webshite, he
uses JS to include a common menu on all pages. Of all the ways to do
this, this is the worst. With JS disabled the menu isn't even visible
and there is nothing to show there is anything missing.
His response is that it looks fine in his browser (he probably doesn't
know how to turn JS off) and none of his customers have complained.
Well, duh.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.  http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

"Paul Herber" and others wrote stuff like...

>>: Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work,

And all the rest, so I'll explain what I'm looking for before we get a "We 
hate JS menus" march;

I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has been X 
number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double checking 
the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot testing 
this too rather than Joe public.

Thankyou,

-dE|_---

"dE|_"  wrote in message 
news:fsCil.87$9u6.2@newsfe27.ams2...
:
<snip>
:
: I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has 
been X
: number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double 
checking
: the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot 
testing
: this too rather than Joe public.
:

How does Google Analytics record visits, are we talking about unique 
visits or just the total number of times the URL is called, if the 
former I doubt that many (if any) testing visits would show up as GA 
would have already logged that page visit. If you see what I'm trying 
to get at?
-- 
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

Message-ID: <fsCil.87$9u6.2@newsfe27.ams2> from dE|_ contained the
following:

>I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has been X 
>number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double checking 
>the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot testing 
>this too rather than Joe public.

I haven't turned JS off on your site.
-- 
Geoff Berrow  0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011
http://slipperyhill.co.uk - http://4theweb.co.uk

"dE|_"  wrote in message 
news:HbAil.46106$OP2.24891@newsfe29.ams2...
> Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few 
> days -before- this post;
>
> Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?
>
> -dE|_--- 
>
>

Nope.

I have no problem with Java, Flash, etc. I'm certainly not one of those who 
gets all prissy about pretty things on web sites. I find the purist attitude 
quite tiresome. Its as wank as the Mac v Win v Linux arguments and such 
like. Remember, Betamax lost.

My only issue is that sites should work well enough to use in as many 
browsers as possible. I happen to live in Chrome, and merely pointed out 
that the menu went a bit wrong for me, when I'm fairly sure it could be made 
to work. And frankly, I don't care about that too much either. Its your site 
that promotes you, your service, and your web skills. If you don't want to 
support a given browser, then that's completely fine. Its your site after 
all. I just thought you might be interested to know. Solving the problem 
would merely add to your knowledge base. If you have been working at it for 
months and have just about had enough of it I can well understand an "Oh 
fuck it" attitude. I've been there my self many times.

As far as I'm concerned use what ever technology you like. Most people have 
Java etc installed / working. Only silly buggers get prissy and turn it off 
for what ever perceived reason they have. The majority of surfers, whom I 
assume you are looking to attract, just use what they get with the machine, 
leave it be and install what they are asked to, i.e. flash. Only so called 
"experienced" users get all silly about such things.

I should point out that I've been messing with computers since the late 70's 
and Janet was a personal friend!!! Should also point out that I don't claim 
to be any sort of authority.

All that said, it appears to work fine now. No initial state in the top left 
of the screen.

AC

"AC"  wrote in message 
news:8nFil.8251$aJ3.2300@newsfe23.ams2...
>
> "dE|_"  wrote in message 
> news:HbAil.46106$OP2.24891@newsfe29.ams2...
>> Of those who checked out crackguitar's redesign over the past few 
>> days -before- this post;
>>
>> Hands up who tested it with JS disabled?
>>
>> -dE|_--- 
>>
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> I have no problem with Java, Flash, etc. I'm certainly not one of those 
> who gets all prissy about pretty things on web sites. I find the purist 
> attitude quite tiresome. Its as wank as the Mac v Win v Linux arguments 
> and such like. Remember, Betamax lost.

Fender had Hendrix, Gibson had Page.

> My only issue is that sites should work well enough to use in as many 
> browsers as possible. I happen to live in Chrome, and merely pointed out 
> that the menu went a bit wrong for me, when I'm fairly sure it could be 
> made to work. And frankly, I don't care about that too much either. Its 
> your site that promotes you, your service, and your web skills. If you 
> don't want to support a given browser, then that's completely fine. Its 
> your site after all. I just thought you might be interested to know. 
> Solving the problem would merely add to your knowledge base. If you have 
> been working at it for months and have just about had enough of it I can 
> well understand an "Oh fuck it" attitude. I've been there my self many 
> times.
>
> As far as I'm concerned use what ever technology you like. Most people 
> have Java etc installed / working. Only silly buggers get prissy and turn 
> it off for what ever perceived reason they have. The majority of surfers, 
> whom I assume you are looking to attract, just use what they get with the 
> machine, leave it be and install what they are asked to, i.e. flash. Only 
> so called "experienced" users get all silly about such things.

I will always back up a JS nav panel with site-surfable HTML links, as much 
for spider purposes as user principles. My indexer doesn't read the script 
menu, I assume Google doesn't.

But as for the rest of the site, my attitude is simple; you can't expect a 
Rolls Royce ride if you pull out the suspensions. On the side of that; I 
won't limit my portfolio's progress to the possibility that some purist 
won't let a new feature (to me) run.

> I should point out that I've been messing with computers since the late 
> 70's and Janet was a personal friend!!! Should also point out that I don't 
> claim to be any sort of authority.
>
> All that said, it appears to work fine now. No initial state in the top 
> left of the screen.

Yes they do a good job of browser support these people. I don't pay for much 
software but this one was worth it.

-dE|_---

"Jerry" <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:gmeuhh$phg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "dE|_"  wrote in message
> news:fsCil.87$9u6.2@newsfe27.ams2...
> :
> <snip>
> :
> : I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has
> been X
> : number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double
> checking
> : the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot
> testing
> : this too rather than Joe public.
> :
>
> How does Google Analytics record visits, are we talking about unique
> visits or just the total number of times the URL is called, if the
> former I doubt that many (if any) testing visits would show up as GA
> would have already logged that page visit. If you see what I'm trying
> to get at?

Both. Unique visitors and total calls. The 'No JS' was the same on both 
displays.

I assume you are suggesting that if someone comes to the site with JS 
enabled, then disables on-site, GA would have logged it as 'script on'.

Seeing as it also records the number of pages per visit, it obviously keeps 
an eye on you all the way and so once you disable, then that would clock a 
'No JS'.

Just my assumption.

-dE|_---

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:11:43 -0000, "dE|_"
 wrote:

>
>"Jerry" <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote in message 
>news:gmeuhh$phg$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "dE|_"  wrote in message
>> news:fsCil.87$9u6.2@newsfe27.ams2...
>> :
>> <snip>
>> :
>> : I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has
>> been X
>> : number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double
>> checking
>> : the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot
>> testing
>> : this too rather than Joe public.
>> :
>>
>> How does Google Analytics record visits, are we talking about unique
>> visits or just the total number of times the URL is called, if the
>> former I doubt that many (if any) testing visits would show up as GA
>> would have already logged that page visit. If you see what I'm trying
>> to get at?
>
>Both. Unique visitors and total calls. The 'No JS' was the same on both 
>displays.
>
>I assume you are suggesting that if someone comes to the site with JS 
>enabled, then disables on-site, GA would have logged it as 'script on'.
>
>Seeing as it also records the number of pages per visit, it obviously keeps 
>an eye on you all the way and so once you disable, then that would clock a 
>'No JS'.
>
>Just my assumption.
Del

It might just be that the visitor is refusing Google Analytic cookies?

Richard
-- 
http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's
too dark to read. - Groucho Marx 1890-1977

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:11:19 -0000, "dE|_"
 wrote in
<fsCil.87$9u6.2@newsfe27.ams2>:

>I looked at my new G.Analytics this morning and saw that there has been X 
>number of visits with no JS support. I know that one was me double checking 
>the upload, and I was wondering how many of the other X were you lot testing 
>this too rather than Joe public.

I visited the site using Firefox with the NoScript add-on which would
have at least not run the scripts. When I went back there just now
scripts from the site were enabled so I must have decided to enable them
for some reason. That would have caused a page reload with scripts
enabled. I have no idea how that sequence of events would show up in
G.A.

-- 
Owen Rees
[one of] my preferred email address[es] and more stuff can be
found at <http://www.users.waitrose.com/~owenrees/index.html>

In uk.net.web.authoring message <vrqlo4h2g8tnu0tfgdrjeocktpc0c9t98u@news
.gradwell.net>, Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:42:46, Paul Herber <SubstituteMyFirst
NameHere@pherber.com> posted:
>
>The incredible thing about my aforementioned neighbour's webshite, he
>uses JS to include a common menu on all pages. Of all the ways to do
>this, this is the worst. With JS disabled the menu isn't even visible
>and there is nothing to show there is anything missing.
>His response is that it looks fine in his browser (he probably doesn't
>know how to turn JS off) and none of his customers have complained.
>Well, duh.

I suppose he has a "Contact Us" page accessible only through the JS
menu.

Can Google find all of his pages?

But surely JS cannot be the worst way to include a menu - is it not
possible to do it in a similar manner with VBScript?

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk  Turnpike v6.05  IE 7.
 Web  <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
 I find MiniTrue useful for viewing/searching/altering files, at a DOS prompt;
 free, DOS/Win/UNIX, <URL:http://www.idiotsdelight.net/minitrue/> unsupported.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:46:35 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
 wrote:

>In uk.net.web.authoring message <vrqlo4h2g8tnu0tfgdrjeocktpc0c9t98u@news
>.gradwell.net>, Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:42:46, Paul Herber <SubstituteMyFirst
>NameHere@pherber.com> posted:
>>
>>The incredible thing about my aforementioned neighbour's webshite, he
>>uses JS to include a common menu on all pages. Of all the ways to do
>>this, this is the worst. With JS disabled the menu isn't even visible
>>and there is nothing to show there is anything missing.
>>His response is that it looks fine in his browser (he probably doesn't
>>know how to turn JS off) and none of his customers have complained.
>>Well, duh.
>
>I suppose he has a "Contact Us" page accessible only through the JS
>menu.
>
>Can Google find all of his pages?
>
>But surely JS cannot be the worst way to include a menu - is it not
>possible to do it in a similar manner with VBScript?

Luckily there are also a number of other links which eventually have a
proper menu, so, yes, Google can find the pages.
Server or client side VBscript? Uurgh anyway.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.  http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

"Dr J R Stockton" posted in a reply:
>>
>>The incredible thing about my aforementioned neighbour's webshite, he
>>uses JS to include a common menu on all pages. Of all the ways to do
>>this, this is the worst. With JS disabled the menu isn't even visible
>>and there is nothing to show there is anything missing.
>>His response is that it looks fine in his browser (he probably doesn't
>>know how to turn JS off) and none of his customers have complained.
>>Well, duh.
>
> I suppose he has a "Contact Us" page accessible only through the JS
> menu.
>
> Can Google find all of his pages?

I wouldnt rely on it. I have search engine software and when indexing the 
spiders don't even read the text on the menu, nevermind follow links.

> But surely JS cannot be the worst way to include a menu - is it not
> possible to do it in a similar manner with VBScript?

? You could do it in Flash, that would p*ss a few old-boys off.

-dE|_---

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:11:19 -0000, "dE|_"
 wrote:

>
>"Paul Herber" and others wrote stuff like...
>
>>>: Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work,
>
>And all the rest, so I'll explain what I'm looking for before we get a "We 
>hate JS menus" march;

Wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. I was just reporting what
didn't work without JS. Your previous question suggested that you were
interested in how well your site worked without JS. It's not at all
unreasonable now for people to go out of their way to try it.


-- 
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.  http://www.sandrila.co.uk/

"Paul Herber" wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Herber" and others wrote stuff like...
>>
>>>>: Just done so, in Opera, the mouse-over for the menus doesn't work,
>>
>>And all the rest, so I'll explain what I'm looking for before we get a "We
>>hate JS menus" march;
>
> Wasn't trying to do anything of the sort. I was just reporting what
> didn't work without JS. Your previous question suggested that you were
> interested in how well your site worked without JS. It's not at all
> unreasonable now for people to go out of their way to try it.

Well thank you for your input on that, but I did disable it myself and check 
it was all workable.

The top links before drop-down, page to page and branch-off layout remains 
exactly as it was before the redesign and new menu system so I knew it was 
all good anyway. Drop-downs are just new short cuts e.g. See the tips list 
rather than go to the main tips page to see the list. (Still there)

-dE|_---