In message 
          Theo  wrote:

> Poprocks  wrote:
>> What do you perceive to be the issue with JavaScript?  Is it an inherent
>> with the language itself, or is it just over-used?

Definitely overused. So many sites download megabytes of javascript to do
really simple things that could just be html/css. Made worse by including
entire massive libraries/frameworks when only using a small subset (this
problem afflicts lots of bloated desktop software too unfortunately).

What's with all those sites where every image is actually a chunk of
javascript that goes off and fetches the image? What's wrong with a simple
img tag?!? And then of course if you click on a thumbnail, instead of
letting the browser display the full size image, it loads a javascript
image viewer that is always slower and more cumbersome to use than
anything on your local machine :-(

>> However, for users who disable JavaScript, in such situations the page
>> ought to still *work* and show the updated information if the user
>> reloads the page, instead of just refusing to work at all, which is what
>> we see all too often.

> That's fine if it's a 'page' of static content like a newspaper. If it's
> Facebook much of what people do won't work (no likes, no posting, no
> replies, no messaging, no photo tagging, no videos, etc). Yes you can read
> Facebook like a newspaper but most people want interaction. And FB has no
> concept of 'pages' - it's an infinite scroll powered by JS.

That's not strictly accurate. One of the few things I'd praise Facebook
for is that they do provide a non-javascript version, and all those
features still work. It's what I always use because it is SOOO much faster
than the standard version.

Sadly, many sites do not degrade so nicely with javascript off :-(

> Theo

*waves* Hi Theo, long time no see :-)

Bryan.

--
RISC OS User Group Of London  -  http://www.rougol.jellybaby.net/
RISC OS London Show           -  http://www.riscoslondonshow.co.uk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05