Shawn: On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM, shawn wilson <ag4ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also, the completely valid point was made that the validation > wouldn't effect browsers that don't support js. This generally > a moot point since 99% of the rest of a site won't work without > js anyway.
That is only true of poorly coded Web sites. :) Which admittedly is most Web sites, but I digress. I use Firefox's NoScript extension, blocking EVERY domain by default. When I arrive at a site that doesn't work like this then it had better have a good reason for me to care or I'm leaving. It's also not uncommon for me to browse the Web from a JavaScript-less text-based browser (links-family, for example). Preventing me from finding the information that I need is just silly. It's easier to make the site work for me than it is to make the site fancy and Web 2.0 ish for people that also don't care and just want the damn information. xD JavaScript should be used to enhance the user experience, not define it. Client-side validation is just part of that. It saves the user a senseless request/response period and page re-rendering. I personally believe that you should develop a JavaScript-less site first. Then and only then should you develop JavaScript to enhance the experience for supported users, if your time and budget support this. You should have well defined goals though. Just because you've added JavaScript doesn't mean you've made the user experience better. Most sites today make the user experience worse with JavaScript (which is why NoScript exists). Regards, -- Brandon McCaig <http://www.bamccaig.com/> <bamcc...@gmail.com> V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. Vg qbrfa'g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl. Castopulence Software <http://www.castopulence.org/> <bamcc...@castopulence.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org http://learn.perl.org/
