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

[Kevin Brannen]

Buddy Brannan wrote:
> 
> Speaking as one of those people with a disability (I'm blind) that still
> uses, and in fact likes, lynx, I have to echo what Chris says here re:
> gratuitous Javascript.

"Gratuitous Javascript", I like that description. :-)

> Rarely have I seen Javascript used in such a manner
> that some other method couldn't have been used.

I'll agree that all web pages could be written without it.  Do we really need
mouse-overs?  No.  Do we really need client-side image maps?  No.  etc.  But
they can make life easier on the user by reducing the number of trips to the
server--which is what JavaScript is all about.  IMO.

> For example, it appears
> (though I could be wrong of course) that a lot of sites are using
> Javascripted submit buttons on forms.

Because it's darn useful to put validation checking at that point, then do the
real submission if everything passes, or inform the use what failed...ALL
without a multi-second (as in many seconds in time) trip back to the server!

> (Even more annoying are those forms
> with the submit buttons embedded into the drop-down list, which means you
> can't get to it in Lynx at all.)

You've definitely got my sympathy there!  That's deeply gratuitous! :-)

> Let's see. Javscript submit buttons, and
> then those wonderful links that basically their only function in life seems
> to be to open something in a separate browser or window. (For instance,
> live365's launching of Winamp or some other MP3 player to play a streaming
> MP3 station, or something similar with RealAudio sites.) There's absolutely
> no reason that forms can't be made with regular HTML form submit buttons or
> something.

Technically correct, but the designer may be trying very hard not to overtax a
heavily used server.  That doesn't help you, but that's probably how the
designer sees it.  Also, if it's a commercial site, the customer may have put
his foot down (so to speak) and demanded that functionality, disregarding what
the web page designer/developer recommends.  (customers can be so difficult
sometimes :-)

> To make a page completely dependent on something like Javascript
> definitely makes my life more difficult, and that of other PWD's. If
> another option is not provided on a specific site and I can get the service
> elsewhere, I will generally do so...and that means that the site with the
> gratuitous Javascript doesn't get my business if the Javascript is used in
> such a manner as to block my ability to use the site effectively.
> 
> So anyway, yay for lynx! It's much nicer to read in Lynx than have to
> reboot into Windoz and read out of Internot Exploiter.

Buddy, please understand, I'm not trying to defend the bad web pages, merely
explain some of the thought process of a web designer/developer (of which I'm
being turned into one).  However, I really like Jeremy's thought of having
Lynx incorporate at least part of Javascript into their code.  I can't think
of any technical reason why it couldn't be done; and it could be very useful.

Kevin