Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: open
My take on this is what percentage of people would you consider it ok to inconvenience or turn away? 5%, 10%? Because a site is for the general public doesnt mean that geeks wont view it. I've just looked at one of my sites (sells boots - pretty non-geek) and some visitors use linux some of them might not even realise that they are because they are using a set-top box.
Its easy to make assumptions about who will view the site but its not very accurate.
I agree with you but it happens that we put sites online that are just working fine for IE (last version) and netscape.
I say :
- ok, it's good, it work for IE and netscape but it doesn't for others.
- no probleme because all others are less than 10% (most of time client has IE) and it's a waste of time to test on every browser and every platform. And this a site for general public not for geeks. and common people have IE last version, high speed, all the plug-in, ...
So what can i do ??
i'm not the boss, i just obey and pass to the following project.
Anyone who has this disabled is going to know why the site won't work.
You may as well have all images disabled and then complain that other sites dont work properly cos the naviagtion is screwed ;)
It seems that the majority are being penalised so that the minority can be pandered to
(edited by: Xoc at 3:29 pm (gmt) on June 29, 2001
in fact it's a legal requirement for many sites...it must be possible for a blind person to navigate the site using a text to speech browser
ever heard of the marketing idea of "opinion formers"?...I suggest it might be worth reading up on it...in many cases these are exactly the people you will be losing
Unfortunately our clients decide on what type of navigation is used, purely on aesthetics and what they have seen elsewhere on the web, if we did not give them what they wanted they would go to somebody who would. The criteria of being indexed by Yahoo does not carry much weight with them unfortunately, however much you explain the situation.
I own several bricks-n-mortar stores in different businesses, you always have customers that you can't serve or satisfy. Defining who you're going to serve and who you're going to blow off is a part of the business plan, that's all. Brett & I have debated over "acceptable losses" since day one. He likes to stop and gather in strays, I ignore them. The important thing to note is that we've both been successful in our strategies.
So whats the alternative to JS? Validating forms? Swapping Images? Using Layers? Redirecting Browsers? Detection? etc
The alternative to all these are server side scripting, The only things that dont like image swapping and manipulating layers are only frills anyway and dont affect whether a site is navigable and degrade gracefully - if the viewer doesnt have jabbascript then they can still navigate the site.
Sites that force users to conform to their wishes really get my goat :)
Thai restaurants don't worry about customers with peanut allergies, steakhouses often ignore the 'issue' of serving vegetarians and dieters, lingerie shops often ignore the existence of 'plus-size' customers when ordering their lacy things... If you have a specific service, and/or a specific target audience that you know well, that should be your primary consideration.
Pick your target demographic and go with it. If you're trying to sell advanced cgi scripts to techie geeks, you're site better run like a dream with ALL the bells & whistles turned off, and it better not have a browser sniffer that forgot to include Linux...
My insensitivity is well known in some circles, tpk. And as for the whole of WmW, I expect that your view is in the majority. I'm not trying to be brusque, just stating a decision I've made with very deliberate consideration; As a publisher, my assumption is that my traffic is free to vote with the back button and go elsewhere. From where I sit, and looking at just my publications, it was the right decision.