begin quoting boblq as of Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 09:59:26PM -0700: > Here is an app that demands javascript. > http://www.zillow.com/ Eh. A good tool for generating buyer's remorse...
> It is IMHO a pretty impressive piece of work. I suppose one > might do it without javascript (HTML, CSS and image maps?) > but I doubt you could make it as easy to use or do a better > job of providing access to the data. That's not the concern. It doesn't have to be "as easy to use" -- it just has to be usable. If I don't want Javascript, then I've made a choice, and I'm willing to take the overhead and the click-pause-blink mode of operation (which isn't as bad as the "cognitive scientists" seem to claim -- but that's a different matter). I understand that there's a tradeoff. But the tradeoff shouldn't be "enable scripting OR go away". That's the same attitude that drove me to Linux when I had an M$ box: "Our way or the highway..." [snip] > Using a REST architecture with AJAX to build a responsive front end > has some real legs. The vast majority of people are going to like apps > like zillow.com and so the security people will just have to catch up. That sort of attitude doesn't deserve security. I _don't_ want the security guys catching up: if people are willing to abandon security, well, that's their choice. Let 'em live with their choices. I object to people telling me I must abandon my standards to accomodate their sloppiness. I don't do business with companies that _require_ javascript -- because it's not their place to make that decision for me, and I object when they do so. Nor do I recommend 'em if someone is looking for something, and I know they have it. Why should I? It's wrong to recommend a business that you won't do business with yourself. (And I'm astonished when a business makes it difficult for me to give them money. Obviously, I don't understand modern commerce. Piss off your customers, insult them, treat 'em as thieves, and then sue them. Maybe most people are dysfunctional and like being treated like crap?) It may be that the solution isn't to offer a choice, but to build a better toolset for the user. Display the code to me, and provide an easy way for me to edit it before it is run... and save the changes. Greasemonkey kinda-sorta fits the bill, but it's too much magic and not enough assurance. I kinda doubt that would work... considering how obfuscated much of the Javascript seems these days; they'd just go in for more of the same, and make it worse. Dynamically generated for each download, etc. What's that you say? Ah, yes... so it goes. -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
