[thelist] targeting effectively

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Mon Mar 25 02:55:00 CST 2002


david,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: David Kutcher
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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...
>
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

if it's mission critical functionality, yes.

i have no beefs with doing things like image rollovers, non-mission critical fancy-schmancy dhtml menus or tickers, etc.  however, i wouldn't do it at the expense of the user -- js or no js.

take a dhtml calendar of events application we put together for a client:

http://www.mtbachelor.com/calendar/

clicking the subnav on the far left highlights days in the calendar view and entries in the events listing below for all days/events that fit in the selected category.  the trick is that if you're using a late-model browser that understands getElementById() then you get it without a page hit.  otherwise you follow the link, the page is loaded again, this time with clicked subnav selected and days/events on the page matching the selected subnav highlighted.  all the functionality is there.  it works for everyone.  it's just faster for some.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

where do you get that idea?  i'm *more* than happy to put some basic client-side validation in place on forms to let users know they're missing info.  i'm down with saving them a trip to the server.  however, before even thinking of adding that bit of functionality, i make sure that the server-side validation is in perfect working order.  then, i go in and add some basic validation (ie, make sure required fields have some sort of value).  doing anything more than basic validation is asking for trouble/errors thanks to the endless levels of javascript support available.  so, i won't try to validate the syntax of an email address client-side, but i will tell them if they've forgotten to enter a value in the email address field.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

don't you hate it when you read between the lines and come up with the wrong idea.  ;p

i'd actually advocate adding some of the basic client-side validation for the reason you cited of saving the user a trip to the server just to find out some of the fields they missed are required.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> Brilliant usability practices.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

look who's talking mr. if-you-don't-have-javascript-you-can-get-stuffed.

;p

give a read:
Links & JavaScript Living Together in Harmony
http://evolt.org/article/thelist/17/20938/

see, what you don't know about me is that i *love* javascript.  i use it extensively where it's appropriate.  but, and this is a big one that most people seem to miss, i use it responsibly.  i know *when* it's inappropriate to use it.  i know *how* it's used inappropriately.

ps, your shoe just called.  it wants to talk to your mouth.  it has an urgent message.  it says it's feeling very useless right now and it wants the foot back.

j/k

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/




More information about the thelist mailing list