Re: Menus, navigation, and simplicity (Perhaps slightly off-topic)

On 14 Jul, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:

> please pester more people with it, how about the html / xhtml lists?
> @include menu.html is every bit as valid as linking to an image, css, 
> or script.

   Personally I cannot agree with you. Using a client-side methodology
   to include content and structure is a Bad Idea.

   A web document is composed of, from the bottom up, structure,
   content, scripts, and layout. If the structure is missing, users are
   in trouble. If the content is missing, users are gone. If the scripts
   are missing, no big deal. If the layout is missing - well, it could
   look prettier for sure.[*]

   If you create a mechanism for inclusion on the client - say OBJECT -
   and that mechanism doesn't work or isn't supported it is easy to
   include alternate content. However that leaves you with updating two
   versions. So we'll include the alternate content from the same source
   as the OBJECT-included content at the servers-ide. But that defies
   the whole idea ...

   Today you can use frames to include content. And you can put
   alternatives in the noframes section. You can even include the same
   content in both places - if you have a server-side or pre-processing
   system.

   Done right, client-side inclusion of content and structure still
   leaves you with either doing the manual update job you wanted to
   avoid, leaving users with out-of-date versions, or using a
   server-side/off-line system to include the alternative. In which case
   you could just use the same system to include the content in the
   first place.

   Back to square one.
   

 [*]
  Yes, I know that layout can improve accessibility.
  
-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 18:56:51 UTC