[thelist] targeting effectively

[Erik Mattheis]

>  > Requiring JS is a no-brainer there. Some people are going to be
>>  irritated and others will have to get someone else to help them be
>>  able to use the site. But the sun will rise the next day, and if the
>>  other variables fall into place as well, the company's bottom line
>>  will be greater because the site required JS.
>
>i don't know about requiring it... i've seen *lots* of cases where a
>developer has said JS is required, but after looking at the code, i've
>been able to gut it pretty quickly with no adverse effects...

We're always going to be able to come up with examples and counter
examples and counter-counter examples ... ad nauseum.

My argument is that choosing not to do something solely because it
won't work for a portion of visitors is stupid. Such a decision is
penalizing those with systems that _are_ capable of handling it and
therefore discarding the benefit of communicating through browser
feature X.

Like ... at one point in the not so distant past most computers
didn't have web browsers. So why are you making web sites now - you
could achieve a similar thing with a gopher site.

What do you weigh when deciding whether to recommend a web site over
a gopher or FTP site?

The question is ridiculous ... as is the suggestion to not doing
something because it requires JavaScript, or any other browser
feature.
--

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

__________________________________________