This is nice of you to cater for disable javascripting, but I doubt the
benefits of that override the limitations and the development penalties that
are too many to start counting.
--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer & Consultant
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]
"Damien" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> Eliyahu Goldin wrote:
>
>> Damien,
>>
>> In what sense do you call an application with bad user experience useful?
>>
>> I still remember the time when developers where forced to program for
>> MS-DOS
>> since not everyone had/wanted Windows. And in MS-DOS one could always
>> achieve the same functionality.
>>
>> --
> Well, lets see.
>
> For a long running process, if the user has javascript, they get a
> stable page which uses ajax to check for progress and updates the page
> apropriately. No javascript, they get a page that does a refresh every
> five seconds - it looks jerky, but it works.
>
> For a text box where the user has to provide the name of a company - we
> have a drop-down list which pulls in possible names (based on what the
> user has typed) from a list of ~200 most likely names to be typing. If
> they don't have javascript, they don't get the list, but they can still
> type in the company names (and anyone is allowed to enter a name not on
> the list anyway)
>
> For validation - if the client has javascript, they get client side
> validation which saves round trips to the server if they've got errors
> on the page. No javascript, they have to wait until they submit the
> form to get the same kind of feedback.
>
> So, if the user has *chosen* to disable javascript (and you'd hope
> they'd be aware that doing so limits their user experience
> possibilities), we still allow them to use our system.
>
> Now, how do the penalties for developing like this work out? Well, you
> have to have server side validation anyway, to protect yourself from
> malicious people. The text box with the "predictive" text just renders
> as a text box anyway - no development effort whatsoever for the
> non-javascript approach. And the progress page? There are about twelve
> additional lines of code to support the non-ajax functionality.
>
> Damien
>
|