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

[.jeff]

david,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: David Kutcher
>
> > did i say wap?  no, i said handheld.  the ambiguity
> > was on purpose.
> >
> > as an example, i could pull up any number of sites
> > using my palm (if i had one) and wouldn't pay a dime
> > to do it.
>
> Incorrect.  You're paying a per minute charge for
> wireless access on your palm or at minimum a $30/month
> ISP cost over a (at best) 19200 baud connection.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

did i say i was doing a wireless connection?  and if so, why does using a wireless connection automatically mean i'm doing it over a cellphone connection or something similar?  why can't i be using a bluetooth or airport connection within my existing wireless lan?  or, why can't i have setup avantgo to make an offline copy of a site to view on my palm while i'm on the bus to a destination?  that doesn't require a wireless connection at all.  i can simply have my palm in the docking cradle, connected to my normal pc that already has an internet connection i pay for.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

did i say must?  no, i said hope.  the question really shouldn't be "why must it?", but "why can't it?".

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I fail to see why a site should cater to all users 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i didn't say cater to all.  heck, i wouldn't make it a point to cater to handheld users, but by being careful with the way the site is designed it could very easily degrade gracefully for them without any extra effort on my part *and* without dumbing it down for my target audience.

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

that's one approach -- assuming part of your target audience is using handhelds.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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 you can cater to your 99%, wow them, and still not lost the other 1%.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

optimizing for v4+ browsers doesn't mean you have to shut the door entirely on pre-v4+ browsers.  it simply means it'll perform/look better for v4+ browsers.

evolt.org is optimized for v4+ browsers.  however, you can still navigate the site, get at the content, post comments, etc. with a pre-v4+ browser.  it just doesn't look as pretty.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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".
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i suspect you've never had a client ask those things because of the way you've sold them on your idea of optimization for v4+ browsers.

optimization shouldn't make a site inaccessible to text-only browsers.

optimization shouldn't cause errors for pre-v4+ browsers.

optimization may impact the look and feel of the site and affect some non-mission-critical functionality.  however, it shouldn't impede access.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

again, these questions are most likely based on how you sell them on the idea of "optimization" (which isn't really optimization at all).

i usually get clients that ask "how can i get the most users with a credit card and a desire to buy my products to successfully complete a sale".  after all, it's the almighty dollar that determines the success of the site.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/