On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:05:39 +0000, Patrick H. Lauke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Obviously you're not familiar with the concept of graceful degradation? > Nobody is saying they shouldn't use it, but they *can* provide a > fallback mechanism for users that can't use JS. <...> > > While it would be nice to have > > accessible-plain-text-many-trips-to-the-server it should not > > be done at the expense of the current one, and it is up to Google to > > decide, do they want to provide it. > > Again, missing the point. It doesn't have to be done at the expense of > the current one. It's not an either or. <...>
Sorry to disappoint, I am familiar with a concept of graceful degradation. Just think that does "graceful degradation" really means in GMail case--and that is my point you seem to miss-- that graceful degradation, or anything done not at expense of the current user experience means simply another, _totaly_ different GMail -- without DHTML based UI, without XMLHttprequest -- which would be just like thousands web mail systems around. Ok, automatic message threading, labels and mail search could stay, but that's not the same. Google was trying to build the most innovative web mail, not the most accessible. Maybe they did not find it beneficial to spent time and resources building parallel, accessible, version of GMail. Shame on them. And this is way off-topic. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
