Frank, Thanks for your respectful rebuttal. My statement was pretty general and a wide-range of exceptions exist for it, but I think we actually agree at the end of the day when the whole picture painted. You're right to draw the distinction between a SITE and APPLICATION, and sometimes JavaScript is a mandatory requirement for applications.
-----Original Message----- From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:41 PM To: Struts Users Mailing List Cc: 'Struts Users Mailing List' Subject: RE: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie! > But, it's a > moot point, because, as I see it, no one's website should depend on > JavaScript for it to be fully functional anymore than it should wholly > rely > on CSS. I would have to respectfully disagree Paul. While I think it's right to say that not EVERYONE'S web site should require these things, it is equally right to say that some should. The point of divergance I think is the differentiation between web SITE and web APPLICATION. The former I would certainly agree should strive to avoid requiring those things, but the later in many instances almost requires requiring them :) Those has been for a long time two schools of thought on web development... one believes in what I call the "classical" model... they feel that as little as possible should be done on the client. They are generally against (or shy away from) scripting and DHTML solutions. They can quote numerous reasons, most very valid, for their point of view: security, ease of development and debugging, centralized code, etc. One of the characteristics of the things developed by this camp is that they tend to not be especially user-friendly and usually at the opposite end of the spectrum from the old fat-clients. There are of course exceptions, and everyone can name them, but as a generality that is true. The other school of thought feels that you have immensely powerful client machines accessing your site, so why not use them? They believe that web applications don't have to look like pages of static text with boring HTML forms all over the place. There are equally valid reasons for their point of view: performance, richer user experiences and lower server utilization (and thereby costs), etc. They generally develop things that look, feel and work more like fat-clients, however, they tend to be more complex, requiring a higher degree of expertise to develop and maintain. Both sides have valid points. I personally fall in the later group, but I swing to the other side sometimes (man, taken out of context my wife is gonna KILL me!). In any case, when you are talking about a web SITE, I think there is more to be said for the classical camp, and just the opposite is true when talking about a web APPLICATION. What determines which something is? There are no hard and fast rules, but generally, if you are developing something that you can't control or even know who will be accessing it, you are developing a web SITE and you should think a different way than someone developing something that will be accessed by a known audience. Note that having a known audience does NOT imply it is an internal application, although that is true much of the time. You can have an web application that is outward-facing... a bank's web site is usually given as an example of this (although some argue they wouldn't use a bank that required then to use Javascript)... depending on what functionality that banks' site provides, requiring Javascript might be justifiable. -- Frank W. Zammetti Founder and Chief Software Architect Omnytex Technologies http://www.omnytex.com On Mon, April 18, 2005 1:19 pm, Benedict, Paul C said: > To Frank's point, > > I am sometimes one of those users who turn off JavaScript ;-) But, it's a > moot point, because, as I see it, no one's website should depend on > JavaScript for it to be fully functional anymore than it should wholly > rely > on CSS. These are technologies that enable powerful usability, but > websites > should gracefully degrade when they are not available. > > So Ajax should add "nice to have's", but not "must have's". > > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 1:14 PM > To: Struts Users Mailing List > Cc: Struts Users Mailing List > Subject: RE: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie! > > > Users that turn off JS are akin, in my mind, to automobile drivers who > decide they would rather play Fred Flintstone, cut holes in the > floorboards and not bother starting the engine. Oh, you'll get around, > but your missing out! > > While I am certainly not trying to say there aren't very legitimate > concerns with using JS, like most things they are overcome with knowledge > and ability. I mean, no one complains because Windows ships with fdisk > and format, they are at least as dangerous potentially! > > -- > Frank W. Zammetti > Founder and Chief Software Architect > Omnytex Technologies > http://www.omnytex.com > > On Mon, April 18, 2005 1:06 pm, Fogleson, Allen said: >> Although I will admit the usefulness overall of javascript and in >> specific AJAX's use thereof I still have an uneasy feeling whenever you >> are using JS. Users, in general, have become smarter security wise and >> many are turning off JS altogether. Unfortunately there is no other >> client side "secure" technology to replace js so I guess we are stuck >> with it :) >> >> Al >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jason King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:56 AM >> To: Struts Users Mailing List >> Subject: Re: AJAX: Whoa, Nellie! >> >> As soon as IE becomes open source we can start that. Until then, or >> until IE's market share drops into single digits we're forced to deal >> with browsers as a given. Besides, much of the visceral dislike for >> javascript is based on older browsers that were not at all consistend. >> Trying to write cross-browser IE4-NS4 javascript is often an exercise in >> >> frustration. In the IE6 - Moz 1.7 Firefox 1.0x (sorry I'm not a Mac guy >> >> so I don't know the current ver for its browser) most problems can be >> avoided by using DOM compliant code rather than IE specific code. This >> ain't yer daddy's DHTML. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains > information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New > Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the > United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as > Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally > privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity > named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have > received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply > e-mail and then delete it from your system. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains information of Merck & Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates (which may be known outside the United States as Merck Frosst, Merck Sharp & Dohme or MSD and in Japan, as Banyu) that may be confidential, proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from your system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
