[thelist] targeting effectively (was: navigation through form posting)

[aardvark]

> From: "David Kutcher" <david_kutcher at hotmail.com>
[...]
> > nope.  however, if a handheld user were to visit my homepage, i'd
> > hope it'd degrade gracefully and still be usable.
>
> WHY?  Why must it?  I fail to see why a site should cater to all users

how about because it *can* and it doesn't take any extra development?

> as opposed to their target audience and target devices.  That's the
> point of market research, branding, and audience development.  To
> target a sector(s) and market to them effectively.  Diluting your
> presence to "degrade gracefully" so that one user who uses Netscape
> 1.0 can view the site nicely, IMHO, is ridiculous.  Making "one site"
> to cater to all devices is equally ridiculous.  Determine the device,

except that this promotes leaving users out in the cold...

consider a client who had the money for a site to be developed a year ago...
since then, a number of new browsers have come on the market, and many
more specialized browsers have emerged as well...

if you built the site to be browser/OS/device/JS independent, it'll still work as
new browsers and platforms are released... otherwise, the client has to
constantly keep you around to maintain and update their site to work on
newer systems, fix bugs, etc...

some may like that scenario, it keeps the money coming in... but it's a
disservice to the client, and ultimately, once the client figures this out, you've
lost a client and all the other leads and projects they would have brought your
way...

just because my site *happens* to work on Netscape 1.0 is more a testament
to good coding, not a decision to code to Netscape 1.0 at the exclusion of
anything else...

> route it to the "sub-site" that displays effectively to that device.
> That's why they have device types.

so, instead you have to maintain many templates just to make it work for all
users?  essentially, that's what you would do... and what % is the cut-off?
and how does that % bear out?  how many of the lost customers had money
to spend?  have influence on others?  and when do you make new templates?
 how quickly after a browser is released?

> If a company researches their site statistics and recognizes that 99%
> of their audience uses IE 5.0+, why cater to that 1% using lynx at the
> possible expense of not wowing the other 99% with a remarkable
> presence?

because "wowing" is, by definition, just that... if you were truly offering
enhanced capability, that would be one thing, but i haven't seen JS do that
well enough for me yet...

so, when you have an audience of 35 million, why leave more than a third of a
million out in the cold just to bedazzle the rest of the already cynical users?

> Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but hell, I educate the client
> in what their site statistics mean.  When we discuss how to proceed, I
> tell them exactly what will be gained and lost by optimizing for 4.0+
> browsers. I have NEVER had a client say "please make it accessible on
> text only browsers" or "yes, I would like it minus functionality that
> 1% of the users of my site will not be able to enjoy or will cause
> them an error".

of course, it's all how you present your case... "you're not going to eat that,
are you?" is much different from "are you going to eat that?"  trick is to figure
out, objectively, which way you ask...

keep in mind, most clients don't understand (or know about) all these issues,
so it's up to us to educate them on all the possibilities...

> They ask me questions like "when were 4.0+ browsers released", "what
> percent of the market uses non-4.0+ browsers", and even "how will it
> look on AOL"... but with those caveats (AOL visibility), they
> invariably decide on using DHTML, possibly flash, and almost all
> require javascript.

you've got a much different client base than i... most of mine are down with
accessiblity, usability, cross-browser support, and future compatibility without
building me into their business...