well its certainly true the foundations are probably shaky. >From what I can gather, it seems to be an interpretation of the Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA).
Fortunately, the senior architect spoke to me earlier and says he is close to having the decision reversed. The only down side is that we probably aren't DDA compliant anyway!! Rakesh On 29 September 2011 18:48, Robert Casto <[email protected]> wrote: > You could try to make the case based on something they understand. > > MONEY > > Tell them how much more it will cost, wasted time, and that no sales come > from it. If you lay it out in a very logical way such that they understand > it is a waste of time and money and won't affect the bottom line, then you > have a chance. > > Or, you need to do some asking around to figure out why the company wants > non-JS functionality. They might have a good reason or it could be something > deeply seated that will be very hard to root out. > > I used to work for a company that mandated IE6 compatibility. It caused > nothing but trouble with the development. It was to ensure everyone could > continue to use the application, but there was a catch. Users used IE6 > because that was the only browser that the site would work with. So of > course that was what all the reports would show and thus management thought > they had to support that. There was no discussion of regressing nicely or > changing requirements to use a new browser. That site was stuck in IE6 and > nothing could be done to free it from those shackles. > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Rakesh <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I would be interested in experiences/opnions about supporting non JS. >> >> My current. commercial, company insists that we need to maintain non JS >> functionality on our site. What this has done is complicate enormously the >> front end and the back end. >> >> Going forward I would like to propose moving our architecture to GWT but >> that would mean losing non JS support (but gaining so much more in other >> areas). >> >> What do others do? Maintain a separate site? Choose not to support non JS >> browsers (perhaps showing a page to call instead)? >> >> BTW, according to the stats we make zero sales from non JS visitors - and >> it seems all the visitors are from our won testing dept!!! Somehow the upper >> levels of business have got it into their heads that non JS version of our >> site is mandatory (maybe even illegal not to do so). >> >> Thanks >> >> Rakesh >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "The Java Posse" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Robert Casto > www.robertcasto.com > www.sellerstoolbox.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
