JavaScript is disabled - Should I Care?
Many times a Web Developer faces the question “This won’t work if JavaScript is disabled. Should I change it?” If it’s something simple like a submit button instead of a link it’s easy and we don’t put too much thought in the decision. What happens though, if we have something more complicated like an interface using Drag ‘n Drop?
First of all, if you don’t plan to make the site 100% accesible to users with disabled JavaScript then don’t bother at all. There is no point in making a registration page that works with no JavaScript and then other pages (like the login page or the user page) require JavaScript. It’s the same thing like requiring IE6+ on registration and IE7+ on the user page.
Let me tell you when I think a Web Developer should care. A web dev should care if the answer is yes to one of the following questions:
- Am I targeting users with disabled JS?
- Do I have the time to do that? (Or is everything else done and nothing needs improvement?)
- Did I make a promise to the client?
- Is the client paying separately that requirement? (Or Do I have the money to do that?)
- Will the website traffic be reduced by a significant amount if I restrict users with disabled JavaScript?
- Will this requirement take less than or equal to 1/20 of the total time spent in developing the website?
If you answered yes to at least one of the above questions then a fully functional JS-disabled website requirement is in your next project!
For me trying to develop sites with the above functionality is like trying to develop websites that work with IE6. If you target countries like China with more that 30% of IE6 users then it probably makes sense. If you target European users with 2-3% of the users having IE6 then is a lot less important if this browser is supported.
So making a decision about supporting or not this feature is something that needs to be done in every project and the decision should affect the entire project.
I have always been a great supporter of browsers with expiration date. It’s a feature that will save the next generation of Web Developers (because our generation is doomed to ask again and again the same questions about browsers compatibilities along with backward compatibilities in web standards)
An important note is that I do believe and I always encourage anyone who asks me to test their website with the lowest-enabled possible JavaScript settings. A user that worries about security, so reduces the things that JavaScript can do for him (like minimize,or resize windows etc.) is a healthy user that deserves to be treated equally as the other users! A user that worries about security, so disables JavaScript is a user who follows a Greek saying that goes like this: “If the head hurts, cut the head”.
In the end, I believe that JS-disabled websites should becoming fewer as the time passes and the need to ask the question “Should I care?“ should eventually go away.
Thoughts and comments always welcomed!
Shawson on said
Interesting article, but it's worth baring in mind that content which is only accessible through the use of Javascript, will also be inaccessible to search engine spiders.
djsolid on said
@Shawson That's totally true and correct! In this article though I talking more (or trying to) about functionality. I completely agree that content should be accessible anytime with or without JavaScript, but functionality shouldn't.
Dathan on said
@Shawson I think clarification should be made that not all content from JavaScript is inaccessible to search engines because it's likely that a search engine's browser renders a page in its entirety - unless it has poor performance - then scrapes it with some filters on the content, however, content resulting from user interaction won't be indexed.
paul on said
@djsolid; I think you bring up good arguments regarding the business logic that you use to drive whether or not you're going to support javascript-free sites. That said, I think you're overlooking a basic point: it's easier in almost all cases to get a site up and running javascript free, then *add* javascript to make it cooler for folks that have it available, than it is to build it w/ the cool features first and then make it accessible as an afterthought (which, forgive my assumptions, seems to be your approach based on your bullets).
$1I also think that most websites should account for this class of user, not just b/c of the security piece, and the SEO piece, but also b/c it's the right thing to do for visitors who are older, or who have reduced sight issues, or especially those who are using screen readers.
$1Yes, they may represent a fraction of your user base, so if you want to take that into a cost/benefit equation, so be it. Just don't forget about 'em. ;)