Have you ever tried using Google Maps without JavaScript enabled? The experience is straight out of the old school web, but it’s remarkable that this basic version exists at all.
When GMaps was first released, in early 2005, the interface was shockingly new. A draggable map and effortless zooming was something set aside for desktop applications. So, I’d expect Google, with all its innovation in maps, to not have a watered down JavaScript-free version.
Even more shocking is that it appears Google is the only major maps player that doesn’t require JavaScript. That’s strange given that MapQuest and Yahoo four years ago each had versions that worked much like Google’s old-looking map app.
This may be a sign of just how much GMaps shook up the market. Previous big dogs had to scrap everything and completely start over. Live Maps, the distant fourth according to hitwise data, was late to the party, but also doesn’t have a vanilla version.
In all non-Google cases, the page appears blank. MapQuest and Live let you search, but don’t provide any results, nor reference that you might be having a sub-par experience.
That’s certainly not the most graceful way to handle it, but can you really blame them? The entire technology requires JavaScript. There is no way to make an ordinary HTML page contain a draggable, updateable map.
This reminds me of a question we asked this summer: Is JavaScript Part of the ‘Real’ Web or Not? For maps and other highly interactive features, it sure seems like it is. Even with the threat of ‘Clickjacking’ attacks, the benefits of rich JavaScript experiences are winning, and for good reason.
Do you think there should be vanilla versions of MapQuest and others? How much trouble do you do to supporting the JavaScript-less?
See also:
