[NTLUG:Discuss] Javascript and CSS == Usable WWW browser? was Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] BrowseX (FAST, small browser) is outinBETA!!

[Christopher Browne]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:53:30 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Jeremy Blosser <jblosser at firinn.org>  said:
> Chris Cox [cjcox at acm.org] wrote:
> > Kevin Brannen wrote:
> > > 
> > ....
> > > I also agree with everyone else who wrote that lack of Javascript & CSS
> > > will hurt BrowseX's spread.  I know I won't bother looking at it for
> > > that reason.
> > 
> > I guess that means that text based browsing is completely dead.
> > I know that this may well start a long thread, but you have to realize
> > that a web page that is dependent upon Javascript for its functionality
> > is probably not going to work on a text only basis.... text only browsers
> > are still very useful and often used by people with disabilities.
> > Granted there might be some (but very few) instances where having Javascrip
t
> > inside of a text browser might be useful... but hardly necessary.
> 
> I disagree, and this is one of the things about Lynx that bugs me.  There
> is nothing about Java/ECMAscript that makes it only relevant to non-textual
> browsers.  It gets the most [ab]use from people that use it for wizz-bang
> graphical things, but the places where it can actually be useful can be
> just as useful in a textual context.  At it's core, ECMAscript is all about
> applying the concepts of OOD to web page structure.  I don't want to get
> into a long listing of what's good about OOD -- there are plenty of places
> to go for that debate.  Suffice it to say being able to refer to parts of a
> page as objects can just be darn useful.

I sit of two minds on this;

On the one hand, I seldom see web pages that forcibly require ECMAscript
that use it for anything more profound than demonstrating that the guy
that wrote the page is a Really Elite WebMeister.  

The point of the exercise is _not_ to "apply the concepts of OOD to web
page structure;" it is to display _useful information_.

Putting "OOD into the web page structure" is all well and good if the
goal is to convince another company to hire you.  If the point of the
exercise is to have a useful web page, nobody ought to need to care if
the PAGE contains "OOD" or if that takes place on the server behind the
scenes, never to be seen by the outside world.

Using ECMAscript controls to link to stuff instead of <a href=
"whatever.html"> seems a false indicator of "eliteness."

On The Other Hand.  

I do agree that nothing inherently _prevents_ embedding an ECMAscript
interpreter in a text-based browser.

> I really wish the developers of Lynx would realize this and do something
> about implementing ECMAscript as it applies to textual browsing.  This is
> going to be critical if they want to keep up with the standard as it
> progresses -- XML relies heavily on ECMAscript in it's style sheets (XSL)
> to allow document layout to be rendered on-the-fly.  One benefit of having
> this supported will be that the user can specify in even greater detail how
> they want their content presented, including with more or less
> text/graphics/wizz-bangs.  That benefits all of us, especially those with
> special needs.

The one other thing that seems silly to me is to assume that Lynx is
the Only Option.

There's w3m and links as alternatives; it would make a whole lot of
sense to not assume that Lynx is the _only_ possible "test bed" for
such an idea.  Both of these browsers do a somewhat better job on
tables than does Lynx, by the way.
--
cbbrowne at acm.org - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #177. "If a scientist with a beautiful and
unmarried daughter refuses to work for me, I will not hold her
hostage. Instead, I will offer to pay for her future wedding and her
children's college tuition." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>