[thelist] targeting effectively (was: navigation through form

[aardvark]

> From: Megan Collins <megan631 at swbell.net>
>
> Have been a lurker here for a long time. And a web developer for much
> longer. I know "degradable" code backwards and forwards. In the last
> few months I've fallen in love with standards-based Level 5 coding
> (html, javascript, stylesheets.)

standards-based is a good thing, and if you're following the
standards, you're ahead of the game... especially since the
standards advocate accessibility and degradability... don't believe
me?  read the table specs in HTML4 and XHTML...

> A year ago there was probably a good argument for sticking to
> "degradable code." Once you knew how to do it it was not that hard and
> if you were clever enough you didn't even have to program different
> page versions. It *was* time-consuming, tho. But a year in internet
> time is....well...you know.

if you are coding to the standards, you are pretty much building
degradable code...  if you start to destroy that work by requiring
plug-ins and certain browser-specific capability, then you are
actually adding complexity (and cost) to a project...

> Today at least 90 percent of real surfers are using Level 5 browsers.

in which audience?  i can point out almost a dozen audiences, for
which i've authored, where that is not the case... making these
generalizations in advance only hurts your projects...

> The rest are search engines, people using accesibility devices,
> developers like us who wanna see if a site renders the same in NN4,
> and lamers who can't afford decent computers/browsers.

i don't consider public school 18 students using donated equipment
to be lamers... or users at the multi-national law firm down the
street that standardized on NN4.x for legal reasons years ago... or
the hundred people at the center for the blind who do a lot of
holiday shopping online...

it's nice to see that not having money to stay on the bleeding edge
qualified someone as a lamer...

it's that sort of mentality that garners hostile users... and i love it
when that happens, because they come my way in droves, and it
keeps me in business...

> Level 5 coding is SO superior to the convoluted, old, EXPENSIVE
> "degradeable coding" paradigm. There are still workarounds, but they
> are few and easily incorporated in any decent coder's style. In
> another year they will be gone. And yes, I code "by hand" with the
> help of an extensive reusable code library. I bet I could do a site
> faster my way than anyone in FP, Net Objects, Dreamweaver, or
> InterDev. It'd be faster, more "degradable", and easily worked on by
> any other serious developer. Less code, more functionality.

your own definition of this "level 5" coding is coding to the specs...
how is it *not* degradable?

i think your definition is flawed... i think you're coding to the version
5 browsers, and not to the specs at all... if you were, you'd see
your argument isn't quite making sense...

> But back to the argument, which is simply this: What "location" has
> your client picked out? The red light district or Rodeo Drive? Do they
> want to attract people who can afford them and who are smart enough to
> understand value or do they want a sale at any cost? People who drive
> 10 miles to save a cent on gas are NOT the ideal customers for ANYONE.

the web is not the physical world... your analogy shows you're
rooted too much in the physical world...

my location is everywhere, and the doors open to let everyone in,
not those in the nice suits on rollerblades...

> If he/she is marketing based on price then, FINE, go ahead and do an
> old degradeable site. (They probably still won't break even on the
> price difference between coding that way and what they earn in profits
> from the truly too-cheap.) If your client is marketing based on VALUE
> then you're doing them a total diservice by not using Level 5
> standards. And
>   you can make the site "accessible" in the bargain (accessibly coding
> is a snap.) Search engines understand the new code MUCH better than
> the old stuff, btw.

trying... to... understand.... contradictions...

there are a lot of unfounded assumptions there... the whole
statement is moot if you take that approach...

> In fact you're not marketing yourself based on value if you don't hype
> the Level 5 standards. And IMHO value is the only way to go in any
> market, bull or bearish. If I get $10 worth of services from you for
> $10, well ok. If I get $50 worth of services from you for $20 I'm
> thrilled, feel smart, and you have my loyalty (until I find someone
> who gives me $60 worth of services for $20:) That's the definition of
> value.

what makes you think that's the case?  when did you get access
to my books?  based on what i've read so far in this thread, i offer
100% of services at 100% of cost, but the numbers thrown out by
others show only 90% of services at 100% of cost when targetting
only high-end browsers...

>   While not everyone can define it, "everyone" knows it when they
> experience it. People who understand that it's actually safer to give
> their credit card number to amazon.com than to their corner Quik Mart
> understand it. They, we, are smart. Duh.

err... what?

> Anyway. That's also Level 5 coding. It gives everyone more value.
> EVERYONE. I've done both. I use only Level 5 coding now because it's
> the smartest business move. It gives clients the most value for their
> money and by using it and providing that extra value, I know my
> clients will keep me in books and wine for the foreseeable future
> because I've added value to their sites and thus added value to their
> sales to customers. -megan c.

again, i think you've confused yourself... you started off by talking
about coding to standards... if you do that, you're pretty well off...

but then you make it clear that you only code for the latest
browsers...

you need to determine which it is you truly do, because your post
indicates you're not too sure yet...