Should I do what it says?



  • I got this email from one of our "power users", a self-proclaimed "technical guy":

    I haven’t been able to access the reports site all morning – is it down?

    I check the server: it's up and running, no problems.  Another user even reports that she's been using it all morning.  So what's the deal, guy?

    Well every time I try to access it, I get a message that says "Javascript is currently disabled on this browser.  Please enable Javascript to continue."

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?



  • Yeah.  Tell him to go and find a biggest, meanest looking bull he can find and kick it in the nuts.

    Oh, wait, you wanted to solve *his* problem...

    ED: Quoting the entire OP makes btk sad :( -btk



  • @boog said:

    Any ideas?
     

    Depends on your role; if IT then walk him through either re-enabling it for his browser or adding any company domains to the exception list on his noscript plug-in, if you're a dev then a short "enable javascript" email is all you send and let him bug IT.  Of course the suggested dev course of action doesn't actually fix anything, but it's less frustrating for you.



  • @locallunatic said:

    @boog said:

    Any ideas?
     

    Depends on your role; if IT then walk him through either re-enabling it for his browser or adding any company domains to the exception list on his noscript plug-in, if you're a dev then a short "enable javascript" email is all you send and let him bug IT.  Of course the suggested dev course of action doesn't actually fix anything, but it's less frustrating for you.

    I like my answer better.


  • We have people like that here... they're always say "your system is screwing up."  Come to find out it has nothing to do with our system.  If it were one of those I'd just say "Our system are running fine" and leave it at that.  If it becomes persistent, you can give more support, but let him solve his own problems.  He's a power user.



  • @boog said:

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?

    Dilbert.com



  • @locallunatic said:

    Depends on your role; if IT then walk him through either re-enabling it for his browser or adding any company domains to the exception list on his noscript plug-in, if you're a dev then a short "enable javascript" email is all you send and let him bug IT.  Of course the suggested dev course of action doesn't actually fix anything, but it's less frustrating for you.
     

     

    If you must know, I simply took the error message he sent me, reworded it, and sent it right back to him.



  • @boog said:

    @locallunatic said:

    Depends on your role; if IT then walk him through either re-enabling it for his browser or adding any company domains to the exception list on his noscript plug-in, if you're a dev then a short "enable javascript" email is all you send and let him bug IT.  Of course the suggested dev course of action doesn't actually fix anything, but it's less frustrating for you.
     

     

    If you must know, I simply took the error message he sent me, reworded it, and sent it right back to him.

    "It seems like you don't have javascript enabled.  You should enable it."

    ?



  • @Sutherlands said:

    "It seems like you don't have javascript enabled.  You should enable it."
    Close - I said "You will need to enable it."



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    @locallunatic said:

    @boog said:

    Any ideas?
     

    Depends on your role...

    I like my answer better.
    Me too; the great thing about your answer is that it would solve so many problems.

     



  • Have you tried turning it off and on again?




  • TRWTF is a server that requires javascript on the user's local machine.

    With more and more users getting smart and playing it safe, you should provide a javascipt-free alternative and at least degrade gracefully.

    I'm willing to bet that the power user in the story has always had Javascript disabled, and was able to access the server without problems in the past, but some programs have changed (in the name of "progress") and now he's been shut out, because he's unwilling to make the change.



  • @Pim said:

    TRWTF is a server that requires javascript on the user's local machine.

    With more and more users getting smart and playing it safe, you should provide a javascipt-free alternative and at least degrade gracefully.

    I'm willing to bet that the power user in the story has always had Javascript disabled, and was able to access the server without problems in the past, but some programs have changed (in the name of "progress") and now he's been shut out, because he's unwilling to make the change.

    This is 1990 calling, they want their Lynx-Browser back.



  •  Procedure would call for writing the user up under section 5 of the employment contract for violating section 3 of the corporate IT acceptable use policy (AUP) making unauthorized changes to the settings on company equipment.  This will likely be needed multiple times when dealing with the user.  Eventually HR will (possibly) fire them for too many abuses of the AUP.



  • @Rhywden said:

    @Pim said:

    TRWTF is a server that requires javascript on the user's local machine.

    With more and more users getting smart and playing it safe, you should provide a javascipt-free alternative and at least degrade gracefully.

    I'm willing to bet that the power user in the story has always had Javascript disabled, and was able to access the server without problems in the past, but some programs have changed (in the name of "progress") and now he's been shut out, because he's unwilling to make the change.

    This is 1990 calling, they want their Lynx-Browser back.

    OMG DID YOU TELL THEM ABOUT THE TSUNAMI AND 9/11????

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @DaveK said:

    Have you tried turning it off and on again?


    Did you jiggle the cable?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?

    Dilbert.com

     

    Goodness! You found a funny dilbert strip. I didn't know they existed.

     



  • @Pim said:

    TRWTF is a server that requires javascript on the user's local machine.

    With more and more users getting smart and playing it safe, you should provide a javascipt-free alternative and at least degrade gracefully.

    I'm willing to bet that the power user in the story has always had Javascript disabled, and was able to access the server without problems in the past, but some programs have changed (in the name of "progress") and now he's been shut out, because he's unwilling to make the change.

     

    No, absolutely not, I'm tired of hearing this "degrade gracefully" nonsense. You have JQuery that means your sites can look and function the same regardless of how much your 2011 browser STILL cannot follow standards, and you have AJAX that allows you to keep load off your servers by only sending back data snippets instead of entire pages after every click of a button. There is no degraded version that will function in the same way as with javascript enabled, meaning I have to write two versions of my code, one for users who live in 2011, and one for users that refuse to leave 1995 ?

    HTML = Content

    CSS = Style

    Javascript = Function

    This is not just doing things for the "sake of progress", this is ensuring that we aren't all beholden to the likes of Microsoft and other locked in application makers ... applications CAN be online and function just as well as offline (Google Docs) for example. But then you get morons who insist on disabling cookies and javascript for whatever concern-du-jour they have (privacy, security, anti-virus) etc ... and then moaning that "it doesn't work".

    Most people drive cars, and they have starter motors. You COULD rip
    out the starter motor, and bump start your vehicle every morning, that
    doesn't make it a good idea. Go on, try it. Remove your starter motor, then when your car "doesn't work", you can go and ask your friendly neighbourhood mechanic what he thinks of your problem.

     

     

     



  • @daveime said:

    There is no degraded version that will function in the same way as with javascript enabled
    Indeed, because "function in the same way" is pretty much the opposite of "degrade" (gracefully or not).

    @daveime said:

    meaning I have to write two versions of my code
    No. It means you generally write only one version of your code, keeping in mind that certain features may be unavailable, and dealing with that situation gracefully; for example, by working around the limitation, by printing an error message and praying someone will actually read it, or by ignoring a missing feature if it is not particularly important for a given task. Of course, that choice depends on users and requirements (e.g., intranet vs. internet).



  • @fatbull said:

    It means you generally write only one version of your code, keeping in mind that certain features may be unavailable, and dealing with that situation gracefully; for example, by working around the limitation, by printing an error message and praying someone will actually read it

    You mean a message like "Javascript is currently disabled on this browser. Please enable Javascript to continue."?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @daveime said:

    Most people drive cars, and they have starter motors. You COULD rip
    out the starter motor, and bump start your vehicle every morning, that
    doesn't make it a good idea. Go on, try it. Remove your starter motor, then when your car "doesn't work", you can go and ask your friendly neighbourhood mechanic what he thinks of your problem.
    Indeed, you could fit an even bigger, nastier starter motor and have yourself a rudimentary hybrid! (There are some vaguely interesting parallels to Javascript there that sort of work)



  • @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?

    Dilbert.com

     

    Goodness! You found a funny dilbert strip. I didn't know they existed.

    Don't be so harsh. Dilbert gives me AT LEAST one good chuckle a week

     



  • @Weng said:

    @daveime said:

    Most people drive cars, and they have starter motors. You COULD rip
    out the starter motor, and bump start your vehicle every morning, that
    doesn't make it a good idea. Go on, try it. Remove your starter motor, then when your car "doesn't work", you can go and ask your friendly neighbourhood mechanic what he thinks of your problem.
    Indeed, you could fit an even bigger, nastier starter motor and have yourself a rudimentary hybrid! (There are some vaguely interesting parallels to Javascript there that sort of work)

     

    Ah yes, but it's a bigger, nastier, GENERIC starter motor that works no matter what kind of fucked up car you have,and the instruction manual is probably more complete than the manual for the car itself. Indeed, the latest model "5" cars have become more dependent on the starter motor than the older "3" and "4" models ever were. Still, we'll always have to deal with people who prefer to get out of their cars at stop lights, and push it across the junction.

    Can we stop now, this analogy is giving me a headache ?

     

     



  • @Sutherlands said:

    OMG DID YOU TELL THEM ABOUT THE TSUNAMI????

    Which one?



  • @bjolling said:

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?

    Dilbert.com

     

    Goodness! You found a funny dilbert strip. I didn't know they existed.

    Don't be so harsh. Dilbert gives me AT LEAST one good chuckle a week

    It helps when you're up against Family Circus. The obituaries would get a chuckle opposite that.

    Nah, I kid Scott Adams, I think Dilbert's still pretty good, too. Besides, how could anybody on this site, exposed to the horror that was Mandatory Fun Day, hate Dilbert?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @bjolling said:

    @dhromed said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @boog said:

    Geez, I don't know.  Any ideas?

    Dilbert.com

     

    Goodness! You found a funny dilbert strip. I didn't know they existed.

    Don't be so harsh. Dilbert gives me AT LEAST one good chuckle a week

    It helps when you're up against Family Circus. The obituaries would get a chuckle opposite that.

    Nah, I kid Scott Adams, I think Dilbert's still pretty good, too. Besides, how could anybody on this site, exposed to the horror that was Mandatory Fun Day, hate Dilbert?

     

    Mandatory Fun Day had people submitting their own versions of the comic.  Out of horror came hilarity.

    I still like Dilbert too, but no newspaper comic tops reader-generated MFD (with the possible exception of Zippy).

     



  • I think it's acceptable for "degrade gracefully" to include such behaviors as successfully displaying "Turn on your Javascript, ass face."



  • Javascript debates aside, it's proprietary software that we purchased from a vendor; we didn't develop it.  So providing a Javascript-free alternative isn't an option in this case.

    Or would you suggest that in the future we ignore all of our business requirements and focus solely on whether or not the products we purchase use Javascript?



  • @boog said:

    Or would you suggest that in the future we ignore all of our business requirements and focus solely on whether or not the products we purchase use Javascript?

    I don't see anyone here suggesting that you shouldn't do that.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    @boog said:

    Or would you suggest that in the future we ignore all of our business requirements and focus solely on whether or not the products we purchase use Javascript?

    I don't see anyone here suggesting that you shouldn't do that.
    Do I need anyone to suggest that I shouldn't?

    I was asking [url=http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/25362/273429.aspx#273429]this guy[/url] if he would suggest that I should.

     



  • @boog said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @boog said:

    Or would you suggest that in the future we ignore all of our business requirements and focus solely on whether or not the products we purchase use Javascript?

    I don't see anyone here suggesting that you shouldn't do that.
    Do I need anyone to suggest that I shouldn't?

    I was asking this guy if he would suggest that I should.

    All I'm suggesting is that if nobody is suggesting that you don't go that route, then maybe that's a suggestion that you do go that route.


  • @boog said:

    @Sutherlands said:

    @boog said:

    Or would you suggest that in the future we ignore all of our business requirements and focus solely on whether or not the products we purchase use Javascript?

    I don't see anyone here suggesting that you shouldn't do that.
    Do I need anyone to suggest that I shouldn't?

    I was asking this guy if he would suggest that I should.

    It sounds like an excellent idea, so long as the results end up back here.



  • @Sutherlands said:

    All I'm suggesting is that if nobody is suggesting that you don't go that route, then maybe that's a suggestion that you do go that route.
    You may be right.  But despite everyone's suggestion (by no contrary suggestion), I think I'll keep making decisions based on my company's needs, and not the opinions of people on the internet.  It may keep us from evolving into some kind of programming-utopia in the eyes of complete strangers, but at least we will stay in business, which I guess is pretty okay.



  • @boog said:

    I think I'll keep making decisions based on my company's needs, and not the opinions of people on the internet.

    -1



  • @Xyro said:

    @boog said:
    I think I'll keep making decisions based on my company's needs, and not the opinions of people on the internet.

    -1
    Was there something wrong with my comment?

    Granted it was tongue-in-cheek, but it was also based on experience.  People on the internet have opinions about technology, but not a care at all about other peoples' business requirements.  It's typical to get advice that ignores all reasons that you picked product X and focuses instead on one specific reason to switch to product Y.  Anyone who has ever asked for advice on the internet and heard nothing other than "you shouldn't do X, do Y instead" knows exactly what I'm talking about (am I right, microsoft people?).

    If that observation offends you (enough to deduct a penalty of 1 internet point from me), then you must be very sensitive.  In that case, I apologize and hope you can forgive me.



  • @Pim said:

    TRWTF is a server that requires javascript on the user's local machine.
    No it's not.

    I imagine this is a vendor reporting server and boog can't do anything about that product requiring Javascript.



  • @boog said:

    If that observation offends you (enough to deduct a penalty of 1 internet point from me), then you must be very sensitive.  In that case, I apologize and hope you can forgive me.

    I'm from the internet you insensitive clod!


    My deduction was also tongue-in-cheek as a hopefully-humorous reaction to my reduction in power as a opinionated person on the internet. Naturally, your priority of company's needs over our opinions is the superior decision, however, I still feel the overwhelming desire to propel a pair of pennies from my IP-powered opinion pusher.



  •  @Xyro said:

    @boog said:
    ...I apologize...
    My deduction was also tongue-in-cheek as a hopefully-humorous reaction to my reduction in power as a opinionated person on the internet. Naturally, your priority of company's needs over our opinions is the superior decision, however, I still feel the overwhelming desire to propel a pair of pennies from my IP-powered opinion pusher.
    All alliteration aside... apology accepted?

     



  • @boog said:

     @Xyro said:

    @boog said:
    ...I apologize...
    My deduction was also tongue-in-cheek as a hopefully-humorous reaction to my reduction in power as a opinionated person on the internet. Naturally, your priority of company's needs over our opinions is the superior decision, however, I still feel the overwhelming desire to propel a pair of pennies from my IP-powered opinion pusher.
    All alliteration aside... apology accepted?

    Alliterations set aside for now,

    I will accept your words and with a bow.

    Apologies are quite unneeded, though.

    Remarks are easy come and easy go,

    and yours did not offend or injure me.

    The point I took was just in jest, you see?

    So let me make it up for you instead

    for I was not sincere with what I said.

    Because you were a sport with your reply,

    awarded you are points - here's TWO - no lie!


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.