On 1/19/07, Wade.Stuart fallon.com <Wade.Stuartfallon.com> wrote:
> These types of application decisions always make me
ponder about javascript
> going back into lockdown mode in large corporations.
You seem to be boxing
> yourself into a corner if js filtering ever becomes
back in trend. Also
> how are you handling accessibility -- or are users with
special needs
> considered expendable in your sector? Most of (what I
consider) to be sane
> web2.0/ajax/js applications I see tend to build apps
that are fully usable
> without js, and then layer on js/ajax to make pieces of
them more dynamic
> or polish the UI. I am not ripping on this decision,
just asking if you
> can go into your rational for this a little bit.
Nowadays, when conservative stats are showing that at at
least 95% of
the users have Javascript enabled (and some other stats
showing
numbers like 99.3% of the user have it enabled) it's hard to
sustain a
case against Javascript.
Sure, if you're designing a government agency site or a bank
site it
might be needed to support all kinds of users. But even
Google has
decided against supporting non-Javascript enabled browsers
in some
application (e.g. JS disabled = no Google ads) I'm sure
there are good
reasons backing up this decision since losing 0.7% to 5% of
the
advertising revenue means losing approx. 70 to 500 million
dollars.
>From a developer POV I think that the major benefit of
designing
things with those graceful degradation statements in mind is
that you
end up writing things in a cleaner and much more modularized
fashion
yet you need to make sure that all the bits fit together
very well.
But it sure means a lot of extra work.
-Nilson Santos F. Jr.
_______________________________________________
List: Catalystlists.rawmode.org
Listinfo: ht
tp://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-
archive.com/catalystlists.rawmode.org/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.per
l.org/
|