Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 02/23/07 11:28

Erwin Moller wrote:
> Kimmo Laine wrote:
>
>> Kimmo Laine kirjoitti:
>>> mosesdinakaran@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I need a small clarification in submitting the forms, Ur
>>>> suggestions please.
>>>>
>>>> In a page I have two form and also two submit butons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (ie)
>>>>
>>>> <form name="myform" action="test.php" method="post" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_name" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_id" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform_no" >
>>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>>> </form>
>>>>
>>>> <form name="myform1" action="test.php" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_name" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_id" >
>>>> <input type="text" name="myform1_no" >
>>>> <input type="submit" value="Submit" />
>>>> </form>
>>>>
>> Okay, now I noticed Jerry already replied the almost-same answer already
>> and here I'm repeating it. What a silly bunt. Well at least the correct
>> answer was already given. I just read the couple of first answers and
>> every time someone recommends a javascript "solution" I jump to the roof.
>> :D
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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".

> 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.

> just my 2 cent.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]