On 1/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
