My sense of the discussion so far:
People are in favor of dropping support for Safari 2 in favor of
Safari 3. I'm in agreement with that, although I'd say the target
for that ought to be 0.11 not 0.10
The question of a gateway page for Safari 2 users is still open. I
think that there is a small window of time while people have not
upgraded. We've never talked about a JS detection page before, so
I'm not really sure that this is important as it's being made out to
be. For that reason, I'm in favor of a solution that doesn't
require a lot of energy. We have bigger problems that we need to solve.
Ted
On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Matthew Eernisse wrote:
(Moving this thought over to the Design list as well, per Katie's e-
mail.)
Mikeal,
We currently don't offer any soft landing for people with no
JavaScript support. The login page is just broken for those people.
JS is so ubiquitous nowadays that the idea of surfing the Web with
no script does seem a little quaint, but there are those people out
there -- ideally we'd like to catch them before they try to hit a
page with script on it.
A pretty standard way to deal with that is to have a gateway page
that does all the JS-detection and user-agent sniffing, and have
that page do a (client-side) redirect to the login page.
That would be the logical place to catch people with unsupported
browsers as well, but even aside from that, we still should still
give some thought to the noscript scenario.
Bare minimum would be a noscript message for the login page -- that
would be trivial to add.
Matthew
Mikeal Rogers wrote:
I agree with bobby.
But I would like to stay away from new page forwards. We should
use some kind of in page message, so that we don't interrupt or
complicate our exiting sign in workflows if people are choosing to
ignore our warning.
-Mikeal
On Nov 15, 2007, at November 15, 20072:12 PM, Bobby Rullo wrote:
I disagree. I think what would really scare people off is just
seeing the "processing..." link and nothing else. Or just a blank
page.
It's not really possible to just let people get a certain way,
and then when it breaks to warn them. The only safe way is to
warn them up front. Maybe this is what you are saying though.
Anyhow, this is not just for Safari 2, this would be for all
known unsupported browsers.
bobby
On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
I would let people get as far as loading the UI so they can get
a peak (assuming it will continue to load nicely). It would be a
shame to lose people by scaring them too much. We should at
least try to get a hook in - "Look at how cool this could be.
Don't you want to upgrade your browser so you can try it out?"
We can load the UI (logged in or ticket view). Pop-up a dialog.
And make sure the user understands that if the experience isn't
so great, it's the browsers fault.
Is Safari 2 the only browser we're going to do this for? If yes,
I think we should say 'no longer supported'. It sounds nicer
than just plain ole 'not supported'. Plus it's the truth!
===
Your browser Safari version 2.x is no longer supported.
Try one of these instead: Safari 3 | Firefox
[Close]
===
_______________________________________________
cosmo-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
_______________________________________________
cosmo-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
_______________________________________________
cosmo-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
