4 ms·
> use a hidden and required text field generated with client-side Javascript So now only users with Javascript enabled can use your website. I'm sure that will
by ZoFreX 16y ago
> use a hidden and required text field generated with client-side Javascript
So now only users with Javascript enabled can use your website. I'm sure that will increase conversion.
> Spambots can’t fill in the field because they can’t interact with objects in client-side JavaScript; only users can.
Not true anymore.
> you can create a honeypot form field that should be left blank and then use CSS to hide it from human users, but not bots
Apparently those of us that are blind, browse from the terminal, or use automated form-fillers are bots and not users too?
Some of this advice is good, some of it is very obvious and widely implemented, and some of it is bad. As the author has left determining which are which as an exercise to the reader, I'm not sure they know either.
- portman 16y ago>> "So now only users with Javascript enabled can use your website." It's easy to measure what percentage of your users have JavaScript disabled. For a consumer website, it's probably measured in the hundredths of a percent. If you can make a change that increases the conversion for 99.97% of your users, even at the cost of ZEROING the conversion for 0.03% of your users, then you will still come out ahead.
- lukifer 16y agoI would be very, very curious to see hard numbers on this. Also, it's trivial enough to add a <noscript> tag advising users to turn on Javascript (with a friendly "here's how" link), or you can do the work to degrade gracefully. Your conversion might drop for such users, but there's no reason it should go to zero.
- mauriciob 16y agoOr you could add the Captcha in this case.
- prawn 16y agoIn which case, are most captchas going to screw blind people anyway?
- count 16y agoreCaptcha has highly-accessible captchas, including audio versions.
- ZoFreX 16y agoHave you ever tried entering an audio captcha?
- prawn 16y agoCan't say I have. Is it not as one might imagine?
- ZoFreX 16y agoIt's difficult to describe. Go sign up for a new Google account [1] and click the wheelchair symbol to activate the audio captcha. [1]: https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount
- prawn 16y agoOn the off chance someone reads this, I'll try to describe it: over the top of random, unintelligible babbling, a voice reads alphanumeric characters. Parts of it are about as difficult to understand as some captchas are to read recently.
- Luyt 16y agoI checked this last week for a site I maintain, 10% of the visitors were still using IE6, and 15% of the visitors had Javascript turned off. I guess that's because that site is aimed at a certain business audience. Another site I maintain shows numbers like 3% IE6 and 1% non-JS. What a difference! Of course, for the first site I mentioned, we made it sure the site graciously degrades for non-JS and/or IE6 users. We don't want to lose 15% of our customers.
- jtheory 16y agoApparently some hyper-paranoid corporate firewalls block JavaScript... that probably accounts for the oddly-high percentage of no-JS business users you're seeing.
- plasma 16y agoIs not having JavaScript really a problem? I never even consider it anymore.
- ZoFreX 16y agoIt varies from website to website, there's no firm rule on it. Different market sectors will have different Javascript support, for example people on HN are (probably, I haven't checked the stats) more likely to be running NoScript, or to be browsing from something like Lynx.