On 06 May 2011, at 15:08, Lonnie Olson wrote: > On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jonathan Duncan > <jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote: >> Well said. I agree. The company I currently work at adopted that type of >> thinking last year and it is very refreshing. Check out these postings: >> >> http://mediarain.com/#jobs > > Jonathan, > Have you looked at that webpage w/o javascript enabled? > 1. Using the hash tag for links (especially links meant to be shared) > is bad because it doesn't return the data expected. > 2. Preventing all data from display w/o javascript is not just > limiting your possible viewers, it's just plain rude. > > Yes, I do agree that most people use browsers with javascript enabled. > Yes, the website looks very "hip" with all the javascript fancy-ness. > No, it's not that much better than a Flash-only website. > > Whatever happened to degrading gracefully? > It wouldn't be that hard to at least display some of the content w/o > javascript. At a minimum, possibly a message explaining what the > problem is. > > Using hash tags for URLs is fine for doing stuff inside a web > application, but for use in real document links are bad. > Here's a few reasons: > http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/02/gawker-learns-the-hard-way-why-hash-bang-urls-are-evil/ > http://isolani.co.uk/blog/javascript/BreakingTheWebWithHashBangs > > </rant> > --lonnie
Lonnie, good feedback. Thanks! I will send it over to our UX team. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
