If the goal is to move from something that is more "secure," ActionScript
isn't going to help you much.  You've probably read some of the news stories
circulating out there about Flash.

For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1750775.stm

Twelve percent of browsers have JavaScript disabled?  That seems high.  I
guess in a corporate environment that's possible, especially since there are
so many "pop-up killer" software pieces out there that don't stop at just
the pop-ups:  they sometimes confuse sniffers into believing JavaScript is
disabled completely.  I've had customers not get to certain pages because of
the damnable things (which, ironically, seem as much an annoyance as the
pop-ups they try to prevent).  Perhaps your numbers seem that large due to
the myriad anti-virus packages out there that confuse the JavaScript
sniffers.

Perhaps you could moving some of these JavaScript functions to process on
the server side, if possible.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "beno" <lists(at)TheWebsons.com>
To: <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:49 AM
Subject: ActionScript vs. JavaScript


> Hi;
> I've been disappointed in the fact that YEARS after the Java scare that
got
> all the corporate IT departments to *protect* their browsers from
> JavaScript (which ain't Java, duh), these corporate illuminati continue
> their silly and blind boycott, to the effect that about 12% of browsers
> have JS disabled, making it an unwise alternative for Web site
development.
> So, I'm now thinking that ActionScript a la Flash is the better
alternative
> (being based on the same RFC and all). But I don't have any stats on how
> many browsers use it, or if it, too, has been disabled by the corporate
> knuckleheads. Care to enlighten me?
> TIA,
> beno
>
>

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA