- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 02:18:24 +1100
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I just don't see the thing as it is used in Gmail for example as a > form. More as a standalone widget separate from the form. It's not a form in the traditional sense, it is designed as a standalone widget. The form is just there for fallback to give server side processing when required. >>> Now assuming scripting is more or less required for applications >> >> Why should script be required for applications? > > I believe this was one of the baselines once mentioned here on this > list by Ian. I kind of agree with that. Making everything fallback is > just not going to work. And accessibility clients can just build on > top of the DOM (what they should do anyway). My phone's built in browser doesn't support javascript at all. Users with limited or no JS support isn't just limited to those that choose to disable it or accessibility clients. Besides, the best practices now being encouraged with DOM Scripting involves using "progressive enhancement" so that applications degrade gracefully for users without JS, and building applications that unconditionally require JS is like going back to the old junky "DHTML" sites of the '90s that we've been pushing away from for the last few years. Even Gmail and Google Maps have now accepted non-JS clients by providing JS free alternatives. >> I believe there should be fallback for users with JS disabled, >> unsupported... > > We are talking about applications here. And why shouldn't I be able to access such applications with my phone, when I'm away from home? Why should such apps be limited to the desktop? -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 07:18:24 UTC