[thelist] targeting effectively

[David Kutcher]

----- Original Message -----
From: ".jeff" <jeff at members.evolt.org>
> what they can afford and what you were willing to work for doesn't equate
to javascript being a shoe-in for smaller budgets.  with the myriad of
browsers out there that support javascript at varying levels, i think it'd
end up costing more to support a smaller set of users than if you'd done it
server-side to begin with.
----- Original Message -----

And....

----- Original Message -----
From: "aardvark" <roselli at earthlink.net>
> for instance, it's faster for me to do form validation on the server than
on the
> client side... a lot less script, a lot less compatibility issues to worry
about...
----- Original Message -----

Well, it's nice to see that as .jeff and aardvark have made abundantly clear
in the last few emails they've written, they're in favor of doing everything
that javascript is meant for on the server side.

So, what they're advocating is that in essense, the majority of users that
have javascript enabled should suffer because of the few that don't.  Why do
they suffer you ask?  Because, instead of doing something so simple as a
javascript validation on the client side where it belongs, .jeff and
aardvark advocate sending all of the data to the server to be parsed, just
so the server can turn around and send a message back to the user to tell
them that they forgot to fill in a form element.

Basically, by .jeff and aardvark deciding to take the onus off of the client
using javascript (and the "moral" highground, they have punished the rest of
the viewers by increasing server strain, increasing server bandwidth (lots
more faulty messages), and requiring a user on a slower connection to have
to contact the server and wait to get a reply telling the user that they
forgot a form field.

Brilliant usability practices.

David
www.confluentforms.com