[thelist] When should you redirect? (was site redirect check)

[aardvark]

> From: "Mark Cheng" <mark.cheng at ranger.com.au>
> 
> In summary, you think redirects should only be used for :
> >
> >well, when content has been moved, IMO... otherwise, you should
> >maybe not have had the page there to begin with...
> 
> Does this mean that you think that flash only pages should not be
> there at all? Flash has some great attributes - when will it be ok to
> code flash then?  This is a bit of chicken and egg isn't it?  Does
> coding to latest functionality drag up the browser/user, or does the
> browser/user drag up the functionality?

i think that many Flash pages are just eye-candy... if a site relies 
on Flash and has no alternative means of accessing the content, 
that's generally a bad thing... art and gaming sites excluded, 
because the only way to expand the technology and expose 
limitations is to push the envelope, Flash as eye-candy is fine... 
but for a site trying to do business in some way, using Flash for 
anything other than add-on eye-candy is generally not a good thing 
for the user...  and hey, Flash ain't no W3C spec, either, and since 
most Flash developers have no idea how to build in accessibility, 
i'm not seeing it as a viable business tool yet...

and the browser/user drags up the functionality... otherwise you 
have a boo.com situation... or a Work24 situation... people just 
won't come, and if they do, they won't stay...

> Do you think it is better to let a non flash enabled browser into a
> page rather than redirect?

depends on how you've handled it...

first, i say give them a choice... second, if you have a proper 
alternative HTML page, then yes, redirect, otherwise, no, let the 
user decide is he/she has Flash (since the browsers don't always 
get it right)...

> >yeah, sites that say i need Flash or browserX get skipped... i don't
> >bother... i've ditched many sites like that, without even looking for
> >a 'skip intro' link or the like...  i bail out of those faster than a
> >zero pilot with a parachute... IOW, those are not effective
> >redirects...
> 
> So, you wouldn't be happier to go to a page that says "you need
> flash/browserx to enter the site" first? If it had acceptable wording?

i get those too... loading a page with a Flash/Java plug-in is the 
same as a 'you need x to browse' page... they're both telling me i 
can't go any further, and they both get skipped... loading a page 
with an option always gets the HTML version click...

i don't think you necessarily have that situation... you can still 
serve your content, just not in the design... so i say serve it and let 
the user decide... (not my hidden <div> suggestion)....

> >yes, unless the designer has coded them to linearize well... and
> >guess what, having a copy of Lynx on your system can help you as the
> >designer determine if your tables linearize well...
> 
> How do you suggest the warning should be done?

a warning for what?  tables just linearize, you have to build them to 
do it well... there's no warning involved...

> >circular argument... you built a site to rely on JS, and now you
> >can't change the site because the JS won't work...
> 
> actually I built the js to meet the needs and built the site around
> it.

well, to meet the needs of your staff, and now your site relies on it 
and cannot be changed without serious rework...

> Well, from our point of view, maintenance and flexibility were highly
> important.  Supporting older browsers was considered less important.
[...]

that's unfortunate, given that good UI design always puts the needs 
of the user over the needs of the developer... read up on any UI 
rules, they're pretty clear about that...

> >and remove that cursed 'everyone can access' line, since we've
> >already established that it's not true... everyone can see the link,
> >or even click the link, but not everyone can or will update their
> >browsers...
> 
> From the text page - which has no css, js etc - everyone can load that
> page - hell there won't even be a table.  The releases don't have CSS
> - they use <shudder> Ms Word generated HTML (which we use DW to
> 'clean' before we post it).  Don't get me started about that one.

i'm talking about your statement, "Yes, but only those who don't 
have ie5+ ns6+ and were not looking for the latest releases (which 
everyone can access from the text page)."  this implies that 
everyone can get the browsers you want them to get... i'm taking 
issue with the message that users can and should upgrade...

> >why did it have to be gill sans?  why doesn't your CSS cascade
> >through other typefaces (like screen-optimized ones)?
> 
> <grumble> corporate communication policy </grumble>

sucks... i don't even remember seeing a logo, though... hmmm...