[Javascript] Design Philosophy [was: problem to print ... ]

[Mike Dougherty]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Terry Riegel
<riegel at clearimageonline.com>wrote:

> This has sort of digressed into some of the philosophical motivations that
> drive each of us. So... since Mike and I have started down that path I will
> add my 2 cents to Mikes 2 cents :)
>

Great, now we only need three others to have a whole dime!  (*hint*, *hint*
y'all)

Even though this list is about Javascript I would argue we can't even assume
> javascript unless it becomes part of our specification for usage. I would
> argue that in many cases it doesn't have to be.
>

Since we added philosophy to the subject line I'd like to mention the idea
of progressive enhancement here.  Even before javascript behaviors are added
to a page, the markup should be semantic and functional.  Without
a stylesheet, the content should be obvious enough that users know how to
proceed. I propose that functional (yet unstyled) markup is like the
doctor's skeleton slide with all the muscle and visceral slides taken away -
it provides a very clear picture of what can be built.  If the frame won't
support the weight of the finished product, a competent designer will see
that and fix it earlier rather than later.  After the markup, then add the
css (the cosmetics).  Then we can start adding behaviors.

If we are using feature and object detection (rather than browser sniffing)
then enhancements can fail gracefully all the way back to the basic
functional markup.  Will 98% of users with modern browsers care?  Not
likely.  Good engineering pays for itself in intangible ways.  If you have
the means (can afford the think-time to do proper engineering), I highly
recommend it.


> > [intranets]
>
> I think this sort of thinking is also misguided. I offer as proof IE6. Many
> companies decided to dictate IE6 for their internal stuff but that dictate
> has affected all of us as these users are locked into a browser because of
> corporate policy but then these same users expect to be able to use the web
> for other things.
>
> I think it would be better for companies to try and build intranets that
> follow the same rules as the web.
>

emphatically seconded.  Our intranet was specifically designed for IE6.
 Thanks to a non-standard box model the intranet applications are unusable
in what is now the company-supported browser (Firefox).  So IE is required
for using our intranet despite the security issued that prompted a
company-side switch to Firefox.  I'll never allow that kind of mistake to be
made again.



> > [disclaimers / FAQ]
>
> Mostly agreed on that point. I think disclaimers can scare users. I would
> suggest that our disclaimers be more mild. Instead of saying "Only works
> with..." perhaps we would be better to say something like "Tested with...
> should work with W3C compliant..."
>

True.  "Only works with..." has the added misfeature of sounding like the
developer was too lazy to test a more exhaustive list.  A notice about
intended user experience may be one of the more carefully crafted copy on
the site.  :)