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

[Kevin Brannen]

I think Jeremy took care of most of my reply, but I'll add a penny or two...
:-)

Jeremy Blosser wrote:
> 
> 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.

No, but just confined to a very small niche.  Your disability example is one;
another is for [limited] sys-admin work (e.g. router configuration) that is
done via HTML pages, but you don't have graphics for some reason (say you're
reaching the device via telnet).

> > 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 Javascript
> > 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,

Amen!  For example, my wife found a web page that let's her play Uno.  I
thought it pretty interesting.  I then noticed that she wasn't hitting the web
with each move, and it was actually very responsive time-wise.  I check the
page source and found it was implemented entirely in JavaScript.  Part of me
thought that was pretty amazing; the other part of me found it disgusting. 
It's that 2nd part that exemplifies the "bad" of JavaScript.

> 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.

Field validation is a major one; and graphics aren't necessary to point out
that some required field is blank (for example).

...
> 
> > BrowseX doesn't have the "bloat-ware" of Javascript.... though
> > CSS is a step in the right direction, so I'll go for that
> > feature.  I find it hard to like Javascript AND also
> > CSS.  Seems the two concepts are contradictory.  One is an
> > attempt to centralize presentation and get it out of
> > HTML, the other concentrates on presentation dynamics interspersed
> > throughout HTML.
> 
> ...  CSS and
> ECMAscript aren't as contradictory as you might think, and XML's style
> sheet component (XSL) actually includes all of ECMAscript as a method for
> handling layout and style dynamically. ...

And to answer your other question Chris, IMO, the main purpose of CSS is to
enforce style in a simple fashion ("hey browser, when you see ABC always give
it the attributes of XYZ"), which if done right, has the ability to reduce the
overall size of a page, therefore it gets transmitted faster, and it looks
more consistent.  I don't know if I'd say it was contradictory or
complementary, but it can be darn useful. :-)

Kevin