I was talking with a friend about users who do not have javascript enabled in their browser and what could be done to show them a "no-javascript" version of your website.
Is it possible and how can it be done?
Thoughts?
+15
A:
Don't try to build separate JS and non-JS versions of the site. Build a non-JS version and then enhance it with JS. This makes it easier to reuse code, allows you to use object/feature detection for the entire stack, and makes it less likely that users without JavaScript will be left behind if developers update one branch of the site but not the other.
David Dorward
2010-05-30 23:05:10
No disrespect, but the "enhancements" you're talking about are going to be of a disappointingly low order. Either that or you are just going to aim low from the start. Otherwise, you're *still* going to wind up with what is essentially two different versions of the site, both of which will have to be maintained.
Robusto
2010-05-30 23:39:55
With respect to Robusto, It's not really 2 versions of the site. It's a working site, *always*, but with extra *features* for javascript users. Mr. Dorward's advice is spot-on and jibes with years of hard-earned usability data. It makes the site more fault tolerant and, in my experience, easier to maintain.
Brock Adams
2010-05-31 01:05:22
A:
You can put some code to log/track/alert you about users who have JavaScript disabled by using the tag.
<noscript>
// Do Something
</noscript>
Zachary
2010-05-30 23:07:41
+4
A:
If you are talking about JavaScript and want an alternate version of your site for those without, simply give them site without and put this at the top of your page:
<script type="text/javascript">
location.replace('http:javascript-version-of-your-site');
</script>
Gabe
2010-05-30 23:08:05
The reverse is better - you can avoid the redirect by having the more common scenario be the default. see my comment below.
x0n
2010-05-30 23:39:34
The meta refresh option is also a good idea, but may not be as search engine friendly, and may cause problems with the browser's "back" button, and some browsers that let you disable JS still ignore `noscript` elements.
Gabe
2010-05-31 00:32:57
+1
A:
Like this:
<html>
<head>
<noscript>
<meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0;url=http://foo/noscript.htm" />
</noscript>
</head>
<body>
...
The meta refresh (declarative redirect) only gets executed if there is no script enabled on the browser. Of course, the noscript tag is only understood by browsers that have a javascript engine. If you're trying to catch browsers that have NO javascript at all (I don't know of many) then this won't work.
x0n
2010-05-30 23:38:51
Some browsers with JS engines will ignore the `noscript` tag, but then not execute any JS when it's disabled, leaving the page nonfunctional.
Gabe
2010-05-31 00:34:33
The noscript element is not allowed as a child of the head element, and meta elements may not be children of the noscript element. http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.1
David Dorward
2010-05-31 08:24:58
Oh, the w3 recommendations. Recommendations, not rules. If HTML was strictly enforced, the world wide web would be a good deal smaller.
x0n
2010-05-31 18:57:22
A:
Another option open to you rather than the obvious noscript tag is to use JavaScript to drop a cookie, and then test for that cookie and deliver content appropriately. javascript ver vs non redirect or span
just thought I'd throw that in there..
Webby
2010-05-31 00:38:35
+1
A:
I use this combination of JavaScript and CSS
<html>
<style type="text/css">
.js-on
{
display: none;
}
.js-off
{
background: red;
color: White;
}
</style>
<div id='jsdetect' class='js-off'><b>Javascript is OFF</b></div>
<script type="text/javascript">
document.getElementById('jsdetect').className = 'js-on';
</script>
</html>
It's useful if your only aim is to tell the users that Javascript is not available and that the site will not work.
Igor Zevaka
2010-05-31 00:55:41