> There are the has js and no js situation one needs to handle.
This is an interesting argument that I see frequently, and being
something of an Ajaxy nerd, I just don't buy it. The only people who
*know how* to turn of _javascript_ are geeks.
So if *you* turned it off, you're willing to live back in 1995 and
probably don't want to use my app anyway.
Let me answer that with one word: "Accessability".
How does this all parse to web readers for the blind? To get an idea, use Lynx as a browser. You can get a good idea how well your website will fare WRT W3C reccomendations by using Lynx.
I have no data on this, but I suspect that webreaders don't support JS very well, if at all, much like Lynx, as well.
I am not saying that accessability issues should rule everything one wants to do - it depends on the audience, of course. But for myself, I am saying that anything that impairs accessability will not be used. If that means I have less blinky goodness on my website, so be it.
I'm not the world's foremost authority on this soft of thing. This guy is pretty close, though: http://diveintoaccessibility.org/
Side note: I am not coming down on use of JS as a page builder at all, merely the idea that none of the exceptions are worth your consideration. And there are many ways to address it that do not preclude using AJAX in the main presentation, with alternates available for those that need them. (example: gmail provides an HTML-only interface as an alternative).
"Things fall apart. The Center cannot hold."
- Life as a QA geek, in a nutshell.
Best,
Jeff
