|
|
Posted by Erwin Moller on 02/23/07 12:18
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
<snip>
>> Hi Kimmo,
>>
>> -- The Javascript 'solution' poster speaking. ;-)
>>
>> Kimmo, I would really like to see your solution to the original problem
>> (2 forms!) without using Javascript.
>> It is simply not possible.
>> Allthough I also wonder why th OP wants 2 forms. As far as I can judge 1
>> form will do just fine, but I don't know the problem at hand (and neither
>> do you!).
>>
>> In defense for JavaScript: My *personal experience* is that a lot of my
>> customers prefer the sexy behaviour a site gets with javascript above
>> better compatibility (= JS disabled).
>> Also: It takes a lot more developmenttime in realworld situation to make
>> a 'double site': one for JS enabled, one for disabled. And not all want
>> to pay for that, and settle for JS only site.
>
> You don't need to have two sites. JS should enhance a page - but not be
> required to use it.
Hi Jerry,
Of course you don't need 2 seperate sites.
I know that. I I think you know I know. :-)
That is why I wrote 'double site' between the ''.
My point is simply that making sites work in both situations can take a lot
more effort in some situations.
And I am not refering to trivial checks like somebody filled in a certain
field in a form. That is a breeze of course, and should be checked
serverside anyway.
>
>> I simple say at the homepage/entrancepage that JS must be enabled to use
>> the site.
>> Of course, a website that handles both situations right is better than
>> one that demands JS.
>>
>
> And therein lies the problem. How many people leave after seeing your
> home page without going any further? Every one of them who run with JS
> turned off. So obviously, since you only see those who have javascript
> disabled, your conclusion is that most people have JS enabled.
???
Where did I say I concluded that most people have JS enabled based on my
visitors? You put words in my mouth/writing.
I DO think that by the way, I just didn't say it. Maybe you are confusing
posters. :-)
>
>> An example (a thing I am working on right now):
>> I need a geograpical map of some area with lots of regions in it.
>> The user clicks on one region and I must select the neighbouring regions:
>> they light up.
>> Another selectbox defines how deep the neighbours are found (eg 0, 1, 2,
>> etc).
>> If I must deliver that piece without JS, I need a roundrobin to the
>> server for each click, rebuild the map with the right regions lighted up:
>> quite slow and it will result in a sluggish enduserexperience.
>> This is just an example of realworld situations I do want to
>> program/deliver without JS.
>>
>
> Yes, it requires a request to the server. but it should not be "slow"
> and should not result in a sluggish end user experience".
Not?
Not if the map exists of 200+ images that the browser has to layout every
time after every click?
Of course that will be sluggish compared to Javascript switching a few
images, and you know that just as well as I do. Or I am misjudging your
competence completely.
>
>> One a sidenote: What is so bad about demanding JS for your site? People
>> demand IE, Flash, Java, Acrobat Reader, etc to use their sites.
>> I have no problems with it. :-/
>>
>
> Because you lose customers that way. Every one who surfs with
> javascript turned off. And you never see them go.
Loose customers?
I loose MY customers if I present them bills for fully compatible sites
(JS/no JS, Java/No Java, Flash/no Flash, etc).
Well Jerry, as I said: I don't mind making apps 100% non-JS compatible. But
I must raise my bill because it results in more coding/thinking and in some
situations a lot of double work.
Of course I prefer a site that handles both situations....
And the situation flas/no flash.
And the situation Java/no Java.
Go on and do the math. My bills will grow.
I think you are describing some 'ideal world' solution, while I tried to
describe real world situations that run on tight budgets.
I do not know how you are employed, but I run my own business and simply do
not have the luxery to make perfect apps day-in-day-out, allthough I would
like that.
And for clearity's sake: I DO agree that sites that handle JS and no-JS are
better.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
>
>> just my 2 cent.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erwin Moller
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|