ansaurus

Question

How to redirect if javaScript is disabled?

Answer 1

+4 A:

What is your definition of "not very good"?

All my sites use:

<noscript>
  <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=http://www.sadtrombone.com/" />
</noscript>

Coronatus 2010-03-22 00:28:12

`<meta>` is only valid inside the head, because it modifies headers. `<noscript>` is only valid inside the body, because it handles content. As such, they are not mixable and may not work as intended in all web browsers.

Mikael S 2010-03-22 01:11:46

@Mikael: 1) Having HTML validate 100% strictly according to the W3C standard is not important. 2) It works on all major browsers.

Coronatus 2010-03-22 01:48:58

What I mean is that the redirection is not seamless. It goes to the first site and only redirects after a split second. Therefore it is not very good.

zeckdude 2010-03-22 02:56:14

@Michael Boyd: Professionals will disagree with you on this point.

Johannes Gorset 2010-03-23 23:24:20

Answer 2

+7 A:

Make the no-JavaScript version of the site the default. Include a small script in there to redirect to the scripted site.

Or, abandon the use of a redirect entirely and go with Progressive Enhancement

Matt 2010-03-22 00:28:22

... thus redirecting 99% of visitors rather than 1%. Semantically, I agree with your sentiments, but all things considered I don't think it's a very good idea.

Johannes Gorset 2010-03-22 00:29:14

@FRKT, Hopefully the page is cache-able, thus redirecting would be fast enough. This may be an issue with sites with lots of traffic, but with a fast enough connection I don't think this will be a major issue. Only one way to find out, of course.

strager 2010-03-22 00:32:24

Well, the ideal solution in this case would be to use Progressive Enhancement instead of a redirect.

Matt 2010-03-22 00:35:17

A client side redirection is annoying, because the URL that appears in the bar changes. Imagine if every time you went to google.com, it redirected you to http://www.google.com/js/And yes, some sites do do that, but I still think it is bad practice, needlessly slowing down the client experience.

Sasha 2010-03-22 00:40:15

@Sasha, Not respecting progressive enhancement is bad practice, even.

strager 2010-03-22 00:42:22

I agree with FRKT and Sasha, most of the users have JS enabled, so redirecting the world instead of a few people, is a bit overkill.

N 1.1 2010-03-22 00:44:01

I decided to do Progressive Enhancement. It's a bit more work, but I see how it is better. Thanks for the suggestion!

zeckdude 2010-03-22 06:55:00

Answer 3

+19 A:

<noscript>
    <p>This site is best viewed with Javascript. If you are unable to turn on Javascript, please use this <a href="http://sitewithoutjavascript.com"&gt;site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
</noscript>

Some people purposely disable Javascript, and you might want to give them a chance to turn it on before redirecting them.

Chacha102 2010-03-22 00:29:19

I wish I could upvote this more than once.

Johannes Gorset 2010-03-22 00:35:06

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

strager 2010-03-22 00:39:17

Answer 4

+4 A:

I wouldn't do client-side redirection, as that might seem annoying to the user. Instead, what I would do is use <noscript> to show the content of this JS-less site on the same page. It may be more work, but it would definitely be a smoother experience.

Sasha 2010-03-22 00:29:27

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

How to redirect if javaScript is disabled?

related questions