JavaScript Required

I am beginning design on a new site that pretty much demands
JavaScript/AJAX. With that kind of technology I think I can give a
high quality useful experience, without it the system would drag and
take time and/or lots of bandwidth. I know I could do both versions,
but in this case that would probably mean maybe 80% extra work. What %
of people keep JavaScript off all the time? Do anyone have any
thoughts on whether this is a bad business model or not?


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

On 2005-09-26 22:03:41 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:

> I am beginning design on a new site that pretty much demands
> JavaScript/AJAX. With that kind of technology I think I can give a
> high quality useful experience, without it the system would drag and
> take time and/or lots of bandwidth. I know I could do both versions,
> but in this case that would probably mean maybe 80% extra work. What %
> of people keep JavaScript off all the time? Do anyone have any
> thoughts on whether this is a bad business model or not?

Matt,

This kind of depends on your target audience. If its a corporate
market, forget it. While they may have Javascript available, a whole
heap of IE users may well not have ActiveX enabled, which means they
ain't going to be able to do squat with your site! (Windows requires
ActiveX for AJAX in IE)

Even in a non-corporate market, combine the two (Javascript *and*
ActiveX) in general and your audience is diminishing quickly. (This may
change in IE 7, should it actually be usable when it arrives)

Also, if its a commercial site that needs pages to show up in search
engines, forget about it again. the SE's won't be able to get past your
first click..

Its now down to you knowing your market. If none of the above is an
issue, they you're fine. If any one of them *may* be a *potential*
issue, and you intend to make money from the site, the 80% extra is
pretty much essential.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> I am beginning design on a new site that pretty much demands
> JavaScript/AJAX. With that kind of technology I think I can give a
> high quality useful experience, without it the system would drag and
> take time and/or lots of bandwidth. I know I could do both versions,
> but in this case that would probably mean maybe 80% extra work. What %
> of people keep JavaScript off all the time? Do anyone have any
> thoughts on whether this is a bad business model or not?
>
>

It's a good business model if you want to steer people AWAY from your site.

I don't know how many have javascript turned off, but I'm one of them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:54:27 -0400, in alt.www.webmaster , Ben
Jamieson <ben@thymeonline.com> in
<2005092622542716807%ben@thymeonlinecom> wrote:

>On 2005-09-26 22:03:41 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
>
>> I am beginning design on a new site that pretty much demands
>> JavaScript/AJAX. With that kind of technology I think I can give a
>> high quality useful experience, without it the system would drag and
>> take time and/or lots of bandwidth. I know I could do both versions,
>> but in this case that would probably mean maybe 80% extra work. What %
>> of people keep JavaScript off all the time? Do anyone have any
>> thoughts on whether this is a bad business model or not?
>
>Matt,
>
>This kind of depends on your target audience. If its a corporate
>market, forget it. While they may have Javascript available, a whole
>heap of IE users may well not have ActiveX enabled, which means they
>ain't going to be able to do squat with your site! (Windows requires
>ActiveX for AJAX in IE)
>
>Even in a non-corporate market, combine the two (Javascript *and*
>ActiveX) in general and your audience is diminishing quickly. (This may
>change in IE 7, should it actually be usable when it arrives)
>
>Also, if its a commercial site that needs pages to show up in search
>engines, forget about it again. the SE's won't be able to get past your
>first click..
>
>Its now down to you knowing your market. If none of the above is an
>issue, they you're fine. If any one of them *may* be a *potential*
>issue, and you intend to make money from the site, the 80% extra is
>pretty much essential.

<mumble mumble>

That is what I thought. For what I have in mind I don't care about the
search engine aspect. The JS is for manipulation and construction, the
SEs should only care about the data when it is static. As for
corporate business, I am uncertain right now whether or not I would go
after the corporate market. It may be that I need to either rethink
the process or just wait. There are just so many cool things you can
do if you grab the data as needed instead of having to grab big chunks
and hope you are right and if not having to re-load everything and
start over. Sigh.



--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:58:54 -0500, in alt.www.webmaster , Jerry
Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> in
<OvudnSW7Y7rtKKXeRVn-pw@comcast.com> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> I am beginning design on a new site that pretty much demands
>> JavaScript/AJAX. With that kind of technology I think I can give a
>> high quality useful experience, without it the system would drag and
>> take time and/or lots of bandwidth. I know I could do both versions,
>> but in this case that would probably mean maybe 80% extra work. What %
>> of people keep JavaScript off all the time? Do anyone have any
>> thoughts on whether this is a bad business model or not?
>>
>>
>
>It's a good business model if you want to steer people AWAY from your site.
>
>I don't know how many have javascript turned off, but I'm one of them.

If I turn away 5% of 10% that is not such a big deal. 30-40% is
serious. There are just so many interesting and useful things I can do
with the JavaScript constructing the page on the fly. If I have to do
a full refresh with each click, which is almost how it would work,
then it would be way to slow. And without AJAX it would be a major
drag.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> If I turn away 5% of 10% that is not such a big deal

It isn't? 1 in every 10 customers is not a big deal?!

> There are just so many interesting and useful things I can do
> with the JavaScript constructing the page on the fly. If I have to do
> a full refresh with each click, which is almost how it would work,
> then it would be way to slow.

Design for Graceful degradation, and don't think of it as being 80% extra
work. Wrap up lots of functionality in reusable modules that you can use on
both sides.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> If I turn away 5% of 10% that is not such a big deal.


What! That's like a shop owner standing at his shop door and telling every
tenth customers to clear off. That is no business model, it's a bankruptcy
model.


--
Brian Wakem
Email: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/b.wakem/myemail.png