Sorry, I don't consider my ad blocker's ability to 
selectively interfere with Javascript an annoyance. It 
may be annoying to a Javascript developer who is 
pandering to the marketing dept's insatiable nosiness, 
but it certainly doesn't annoy me.

IMHO, if you want to do this kind of stuff reliably, it's 
best to do as much of it server side as you can (for 
instance, replacing cookies!), and be willing to politely 
ask visitors to enable Javascript (if needed for site 
functionality, not marketing nosiness!) when visiting this 
site. My ad blocker has a "whitelist" in which I can put 
put sites that I don't want it to filter.

David
dvjones(at)ksbe.edu

On 14 Apr 2003, at 18:55, Mike Taylor wrote:

> 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