ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

ikjeft01 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:43:48 GMT

Ann:

to "hide" the email address on your page botttoms, why not have a graphic of whatever constant text (support@foobar.com) is to display? This solution prevents snooping the code for plain-text email addresses, and doesn't require javascript... or am i being too simple-minded here?

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Derek Hosewood — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:56:06 GMT

actually i used a modified version of the redirect thing in the end. first thing i do on my html (aspx) page is call a script which uses the XMLHttpRequest to GET another aspx page which sets a Session variable.

now i can check to see if this session variable is populated and only call my server side code if it is.

for me that solved the problem that code in the <% %> still executes even in the <noscript> tag

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Ann Ezzell — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:25:02 GMT

I was elated to find this post, because I thought it would solve a problem I've been having with a new design we're buildling.

We have contact info at the bottom of every page, including an e-mail address. In an attempt to protect the e-mail addresses, we use JavaScript to display the e-mail address, assembled from pieces, so the actual address never appears in the code.

But people without JavaScript see nothing.

So we need to be able to display the e-mail address without JavaScript if it's not available. But that requires putting it in the code.

I can't see a way to put it in the code *if and only if* JavaScript is disabled, because the <noscript> contents are always displayed.

I was so excited to find this, thinking it might solve my problem. But there really isn't a solution to this problem, is there? Because there's no way to detect JavaScript server-side the first time the page loads.

WebForm Gripe - Getting LinkButton to work without Javascript.

Chris Hardy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:55:23 GMT

WebForms is a sort of love/hate thing for me. There are some things I love about WebForms and then there

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Richard G — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:40:06 GMT

Who doesn't have JavaScript?

FireFox + NoScript

IE in Restricted Sites

Now, all these people can turn it back on, but will they?

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Bob — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:36:34 GMT

Is it really necessary to detect Javascript these days?

Don't know the statistics, but only thing I could imagine posing a problem would be mobile devices.. But, please, educate me :)

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Waldek Mastykarz — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:29:54 GMT

Shawn Devin has just recently presented a solution to check server side whether JavaScript is enabled or not (www.codeproject.com/.../Detect_JavaScript_in_ASPX.aspx). To be honest I'm not really convinced by using a redirect method, but it might just work for some of you.

Interesting Finds: February 23, 2008

Jason Haley — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:15:59 GMT

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Alex Papadimoulis — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:03:29 GMT

The problem is, there is no way to determine (ServerSide) whether or not JavaScript is enabled.

There are certainly guesses - looking at the browser ID string, an entry page that (effectively) uses JavaScript to set Session data, etc - but, if your goal is to develop for accessibility, none of the hacks are a good fit.

re: ScriptOnly - The Opposite of a NOSCRIPT

Joe Chung — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:37:17 GMT

Another way to do this would be to implement a control adapter for your custom controls that determines if JavaScript is enabled (or desired) on the browser and changes the HTML rendering accordingly. I think that your approach is easier to understand for people familiar with NOSCRIPT though.