[thelist] targeting effectively

[.jeff]

erik,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Erik Mattheis
>
> I came to this project at the tail-end the pop-up/no
> pop-up discussion ... I'd  actually like you to repost
> your method of the near fail-proof link to a JavaScript
> function ... I remember it as being really cool.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Links & JavaScript Living Together in Harmony
http://evolt.org/article/thelist/17/20938/

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> A caveat: I could imagine situations where it would be
> better to leave people with JS off cold than allow them
> to see something other than was intended.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

in cases like that you'd want to give them a message explaining what it is they're missing out on and how they can fix that problem so they can join in too.  this technique is also covered in the article above.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Yes, some things that you can accomplish with JavaScript
> can also degrade so they work without JS (or whatever).
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, and anything else should be non-mission-critical.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Jeff, I really admire you for your coding, but it seems
> to me that thinking "If you can code it to work
> everywhere, it's the right thing to do" is flawed.  And
> that seems to me what you're saying.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that is what i'm saying and i don't think it's flawed.  if you can make it work, why shouldn't you?  the wheelchair ramp on the architecture's rendering of the new doctor's office is unsightly so we'll just not build that.  problem solved?  no!  problem created.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> There are other variables ... whether it's within a
> budget or manageable to create a "degrading" version;
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

in cases where it actually costs more to make it degrade, if you explain the ramifications of it not degrading to the client, many (most?) will make it within the budget for it to degrade if the project is important to them.  the degrading version often doesn't have to cost more if you construct the project in the right order.  build the accessible, no bells and whistles portions first.  then, once it's all working peachy you go in and add the extras making sure you don't remove or damage the accessible nature of the first portion.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> whether showing the visitor something similar to what
> you intended is worth it at all.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

yes, you have to weigh the benefits, for sure.  in some cases it simply won't make sense to have a degrading version.  in those cases you want to make sure that you don't expose the workings of the "thing" that's not available to the excluded users.  for example, suppose you had a popup window with some fancy javascript something-or-other that couldn't be replicated in some other fashion for non-js users.  let's suppose this popup was opened from a link on the page.  a mediocre solution would be for the link to take the user to a page explaining why they can't see the javascript something-or-other.  the better solution would be if they didn't see the link at all.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Like again, I think you're one if the strongest features
> of thelist, but in the days of gopher and 0.002 baud
> (http://www.samizdat.com/) being cutting edge, quoting
> your replies with
>
> >  ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> would have been considered catering to the elite.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

huh?  as in the use of bandwidth for all the extra characters?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > understandable coming from a guy who makes a fair
> > amount of his income from the use of flash.  ;p
> >
> > myself and my clients would prefer to put their
> > message in front of as many users as possible.
>
> If it could make an emoticon that would mean: "long
> extended PPPPPPLLLLBBBBBBTTTTT" with lots of flying
> saliva, I would. Then I'd buy you another drink.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i've already got dibs on buying the first round since you've been such a good sport.

.jeff

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