Re: [WSG] OT: Dominos Pizza - Looking for someone who's worked there
...and if anyone knows who designed the dominos.com.au online ordering system, please let me know. I'd like to have a quiet word with them :) Cheers, Andrew Andrew Boyd faci...@gmail.com http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss On 16/06/2009, at 10:51 AM, "Mike Kear" wrote: This is off-topic for this list so please respond direct to me rather than the list ... I'm looking to have a quick chat to someone who's worked at Dominos Pizza some time in the last 5 years - not necessarily in the IT area - even someone who's delivered pizzas would do. But if you've worked there or know something of how they operate, I'd be grateful if you could contact me. (Just being a customer isn't enough - I am too) I need to ask a fairly basic question about an aspect of their operations - I wont be asking you to break any confidences and its not for any competing project. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 02-4577-4898 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] OT: Dominos Pizza - Looking for someone who's worked there
Easiest way. Order a Pizza from them, then when the delivery person arrives, refuse to pay until they answer you question. You'll have your answer in about 30 mins, hehe. Mike Kear wrote: This is off-topic for this list so please respond direct to me rather than the list ... I'm looking to have a quick chat to someone who's worked at Dominos Pizza some time in the last 5 years - not necessarily in the IT area - even someone who's delivered pizzas would do. But if you've worked there or know something of how they operate, I'd be grateful if you could contact me. (Just being a customer isn't enough - I am too) I need to ask a fairly basic question about an aspect of their operations - I wont be asking you to break any confidences and its not for any competing project. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 02-4577-4898 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] OT: Dominos Pizza - Looking for someone who's worked there
This is off-topic for this list so please respond direct to me rather than the list ... I'm looking to have a quick chat to someone who's worked at Dominos Pizza some time in the last 5 years - not necessarily in the IT area - even someone who's delivered pizzas would do. But if you've worked there or know something of how they operate, I'd be grateful if you could contact me. (Just being a customer isn't enough - I am too) I need to ask a fairly basic question about an aspect of their operations - I wont be asking you to break any confidences and its not for any competing project. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia 0422 985 585 02-4577-4898 Adobe Certified Advanced ColdFusion Developer AFP Webworks Pty Ltd http://afpwebworks.com Full Scale ColdFusion hosting from A$15/month *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div
I agree with you on pretty much everything. My point is that I wish there was more detailed analysis of users with JS etc. Lets take the example of a social networking site that earns revenue by pay per click advertising. If we assume that maybe 10% of users don't have JS, it is also possible that these users are not going to be heavy internet users if they are using outdated browsers an using an inferior (non-JS) version of the site. Therefore, it is probable that more than 90% of the site's revenue would be coming from the 90% of users with JS. In other words "visitors with JS installed" might not be a useful metric. I accept that mobile phones and many other things could also account for visitors without JS, but that just proves my point further that the simple with-and-without-JS metric is not that informative. I would be happy if I was proved wrong and that these 10% of people with abnormal browsers did account for 10% of revenue, but I doubt it. How about measuring the percentage of the total time spent on the site spent by users with JS, or better still, the percentage of clicks on adds by users with JS? I agree that it is hard to fault progressive enhancement, but what about when we get on to flash, silverlight etc. With those technologies, providing a html alternative probably adds significant developer time. I am sure we could all find great examples of sites that are successes and are great examples of progressive enhancement, but I would be really interested if anyone knew of a site that failed because it didn't cater for users without JS or flash. On 15 Jun 2009, at 14:48, Paul Novitski wrote: At 6/14/2009 06:02 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: If you can improve the user experience using JS (why else would you be spending time on it) then you must accept that the user experience for those 10% without JS is going to be worse and hence they are less likely to buy from you, or give you some kind of revenue. Is it really worth spending all this effort to cater for users that in the end may only account for a tiny percentage of sales? Conversely, if you start out by building a robust site with server- side scripting, and then add JavaScript as an enhancement on top, you'll be spending the extra time catering to those with JavaScript, not those without, and by your way of thinking those are the folks who are more likely to bring in more revenue, so the financial model would fit the demographics. However, if someone's not using JavaScript on your site, they probably aren't using it on sites in general. Rather than compare their likelihood to buy with others of your customers who do run JS, compare their experience on your site with their experience on other sites -- the folks you're competing with. If someone is driven to your site because the competing sites are broken or clumsy without JS, then making your own site work competently without JS is a revenue generator. If you try to cut costs by shutting out that 10% or whatever of potential buyers, you're simply driving them to competitors whose sites they can use. I don't see the bottom-line benefit of that. Ten percent, by the way, is an enormous number. I mean, you have to start out by building a robust site -- that's bottom-line, right? You don't go into it with a goal to build a broken one. Is it more time-consuming to build a site that works with and without JavaScript than to build one that breaks without it? Where would the time-savings come in the development plan? If you're validating a form with JS, you still have to validate it server-side so you don't invite hackers. If you're using Ajax to update the server, you still need to write those server-side modules to receive, validate, and process the data; whether the update mechanism is an HTML form submit or a JavaScript XMLHttpRequest you still have to write the same core back-end code. We can certainly imagine pages such as drag-&-drop layout modifiers whose user interfaces would likely have to be radically different if pulled off completely server-side, but by far most websites have user interfaces that can look very similar if not identical without JavaScript; it's just their response time that isn't as instantaneous when it comes to, say, forms morphing as the user drills into the options. That said, client-server round trips on broadband are pretty fast these days and people are accustomed to waiting for page refreshes on most sites, so I don't think most people would consider that aspect to be a sale-killer. I don't see, for example, Amazon.com suffering for lack of sales because people are too impatient to wait for page refreshes. I am not saying this is definitely the case, but plain statistics about how many users have JS or flash or siverlight etc don't tell you the full story. If a developer has X amount of hours to spend on a site, the
Re: [WSG] returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div
At 6/14/2009 06:02 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: If you can improve the user experience using JS (why else would you be spending time on it) then you must accept that the user experience for those 10% without JS is going to be worse and hence they are less likely to buy from you, or give you some kind of revenue. Is it really worth spending all this effort to cater for users that in the end may only account for a tiny percentage of sales? Conversely, if you start out by building a robust site with server-side scripting, and then add JavaScript as an enhancement on top, you'll be spending the extra time catering to those with JavaScript, not those without, and by your way of thinking those are the folks who are more likely to bring in more revenue, so the financial model would fit the demographics. However, if someone's not using JavaScript on your site, they probably aren't using it on sites in general. Rather than compare their likelihood to buy with others of your customers who do run JS, compare their experience on your site with their experience on other sites -- the folks you're competing with. If someone is driven to your site because the competing sites are broken or clumsy without JS, then making your own site work competently without JS is a revenue generator. If you try to cut costs by shutting out that 10% or whatever of potential buyers, you're simply driving them to competitors whose sites they can use. I don't see the bottom-line benefit of that. Ten percent, by the way, is an enormous number. I mean, you have to start out by building a robust site -- that's bottom-line, right? You don't go into it with a goal to build a broken one. Is it more time-consuming to build a site that works with and without JavaScript than to build one that breaks without it? Where would the time-savings come in the development plan? If you're validating a form with JS, you still have to validate it server-side so you don't invite hackers. If you're using Ajax to update the server, you still need to write those server-side modules to receive, validate, and process the data; whether the update mechanism is an HTML form submit or a JavaScript XMLHttpRequest you still have to write the same core back-end code. We can certainly imagine pages such as drag-&-drop layout modifiers whose user interfaces would likely have to be radically different if pulled off completely server-side, but by far most websites have user interfaces that can look very similar if not identical without JavaScript; it's just their response time that isn't as instantaneous when it comes to, say, forms morphing as the user drills into the options. That said, client-server round trips on broadband are pretty fast these days and people are accustomed to waiting for page refreshes on most sites, so I don't think most people would consider that aspect to be a sale-killer. I don't see, for example, Amazon.com suffering for lack of sales because people are too impatient to wait for page refreshes. I am not saying this is definitely the case, but plain statistics about how many users have JS or flash or siverlight etc don't tell you the full story. If a developer has X amount of hours to spend on a site, then it is possible that the most effective way to increase revenue of that site might be to forget about people without JS etc and just create the best experience for the majority of internet users. That's graceful degradation talking. Sit tight, we're sending over the deprogrammers. Sorry if this sounds a bit like heresy. No worries -- a) it ain't religion and b) thinking people welcome heresy. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: Re: [WSG] functionality without JavaScript [WAS: returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div]
Hi. >Out of curiosity, what sort of feature are you talking about that >can't be done server side (ie, *without* AJAX)? As a matter of fact, you right. Without AJAX (in any form) server side scripting remains intact and matter disappears. My front end development order: 1. XHTML coding of structure. Semantic and accessibility features fully included. 2. Adding style sheets for all devices i support (in external files). 3. Adding js (in external files). There is just no sense to develop it in any other way a.f.a.i.k. But, if there is AJAX, i must assess time and budget and decide: what type of communication with server side i must support primarily and do i have enough resources to support another. Regards. Raven aka Silent Imp. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] IE7 wraps lines in table for no apparent reason ?
thanks again - works like a charm
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 9:33 PM, raven wrote:
> Hi.
> If you want prohibit text wrap in column, you may use CSS rule.
>
> td{
> white-space: nowrap;
> }
>
> Regards.
> Raven aka Silent Imp.
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
> ***
>
>
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div
thanks guys, the #tr... method didn't work for me before because of a stupid syntax error on my side : ( works like a charm now. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Andrew Stewart wrote: > On 15 Jun 2009, at 10:05, matt andrews wrote: > > Here's a number for you: when I added JS usage stats gathering about a >> year ago to a large site I was working on, I was quite surprised to >> find that 10% (rounded to the nearest percent) of unique users were >> not running Javascript. This was one of the major net dating sites in >> Europe, with > 1 million membership, so it was a fairly mainstream (as >> opposed to tech/webdev) user population. >> >> Many mobile browsers don't support JS. Many corporate networks enforce >> JS being turned off. Search bots typically don't support JS. Short >> answer: you cannot rely on JS being there. >> >> > If you can improve the user experience using JS (why else would you be > spending time on it) then you must accept that the user experience for those > 10% without JS is going to be worse and hence they are less likely to buy > from you, or give you some kind of revenue. Is it really worth spending all > this effort to cater for users that in the end may only account for a tiny > percentage of sales? I am not saying this is definitely the case, but plain > statistics about how many users have JS or flash or siverlight etc don't > tell you the full story. If a developer has X amount of hours to spend on a > site, then it is possible that the most effective way to increase revenue of > that site might be to forget about people without JS etc and just create the > best experience for the majority of internet users. > > Sorry if this sounds a bit like heresy. > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] functionality without JavaScript [WAS: returning to scroll position in a table inside a fixed hight div]
I think the point is if you should be spending time developing something with a bad user experience that hardly anyone will use. Yes you could implement a spreadsheet app with tons of page requests, but the user experience would be so bad that people probably wouldn't want to use it. On 15 Jun 2009, at 16:42, nedlud wrote: Out of curiosity, what sort of feature are you talking about that can't be done server side (ie, *without* AJAX)? I'll confess to relying heavily on server side JS on some projects, but I did so because I knew those apps would be used exclusively on an intranet where the SOE was known to support JS. The user experience is definitely enhanced from the use of client side JS (it was a kind of online spread sheet used by the finance dept), but it's nothing I couldn't have done, with a little work, on the server side (and *lots* of page submissions). On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:29 PM, raven wrote: Hi. If a website client of yours hired you to manage an actual storefront and you arbitrarily slammed the door in the face of every 100th, 200th, or even 1000th customer, how long do you think would you keep your job? If some js feature bring me 100 costumers i can effort loose 1, which don't support js. Another question that i try to keep all of them, if it's possible. Graceful degradation is better than nothing, but progressive enhancement rocks. ACK. It rocks. Problem: Often some js feature (AJAX for example) is key to the project. Than first i develop server side scripts and front end, which depends on AJAX. And after i finish, if there is enough time and budget is OK, i modify front end (if needed) and write additional server side scripts so user may work without js. If code is good — add such accessibility feature is not a problem. But if you get project with low budget and where deadline was yesterday, than accessibility must first be sacrificed. If project stay alive — you may return to this question. Yes, progressive enhancement rocks. But, if don't use it wisely, you'll starve. Also I do support witches, but that's off-topic. Sorry for my English. I need more practice. Much much more practice. :) Regards. Raven aka Silent Imp. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
