Posted by Marcus Bointon on 05/11/05 11:06

On 11 May 2005, at 07:12, Vicente Werner wrote:

> Of course there's, the probability of having a bug depends of code
> size.

That's not necessarily true. It's far more subtle than that. This is
kind of interesting: http://www.verifysoft.com/en_halstead_metrics.html

> Probably client side might enhance some users experience, but in the
> market I mostly work (spanish) the customer feedback dosn't justify
> it.

That's fair enough, but no reason to discount it for other
developers. There's over 200k of condensed JS in gmail. Do you think
there is the faintest possibility that its usability is improved by
its dynamic implementation? I've not yet seen a so-called AJAX
application that does not set out to improve user experience as a
primary objective. Hell, we could even use it for server-side
validation on the client!

I'd guess you're also against using the 'IE7' JS patcher, despite its
utility. I'm also curious - can you point me at a current,
documented, non-degradable (page becomes unusable) bug report
involving IE6 running qforms?

Marcus
--
Marcus Bointon
Synchromedia Limited: Putting you in the picture
marcus@synchromedia.co.uk | http://www.synchromedia.co.uk

[Back to original message]