Re: [GNU Herds service]: HTML + CSS + JavaScript-as-not-required-addition

[Davi Leal]

Victor Engmark wrote:
> Davi Leal wrote:

> The GNU Herds service could offer a set-of-option, as previously commented
> > by Antenore.  Choose any combination of the below options:
[...]

> Whoah, that's a lot of work. I propose a different, bottom-up approach,
> which I think will be less work and fulfill a+b without the need for any
> others. The following should be done for each form:
>
[...]
>
> Voil�! Working JS and non-JS forms, accessible and flexible.
>
> * The point of this is to make sure nobody is scared off by the forms the
> first time they see them. I believe the "nice to have" fields should be
> hidden by default, but for the optional ones it depends on how big the form
> will be with them. Maybe they could always be shown.



> > But the main point is know what the *users* want. It depends on the
> > 'kind' of user:
[...]

> I strongly disagree. There are plenty of users which for various reasons
> won't / can't use JavaScript:
>
>    - Security policies / paranoia.
>    - Using a non-graphical browser, e.g. voice, braille, or text.
>    - Using a light-weight browser, e.g., on a mobile phone or PDA.
>    - Using a browser with a broken JavaScript implementation (IE,
>      anyone?)

You got me.

Just a comment: About mobile phones, I have noted Google has a totally
different interface, with the heading removed, etc., etc. And they send
all the markup in only one line of text!.


> Some reasons why a CLI application is a bad idea:
>
>    - Lots of duplicated work.
>    - Many open source enthusiasts and developers are still using Windows
>      primarily. Some OSS projects, like TortoiseCVS, are Windows-only.
>    - If someone is unwilling to enable JavaScript or get a
>      JavaScript-enabled browser to view our site, why would they go
>      through the bother of installing our application?

Yeah, installing the app sucks. Users of job sites are not used to install
an app to access the service of a website.



> In conclusion, by building bottom-up, we make sure anyone can use the forms,
> and that people with JavaScript and CSS support get a nice experience. On
> the contrary, by locking onto JavaScript, we would completely exclude some
> people, and break accessibility laws in several countries, including
> the U.S..

Now, I agree with you.

Davi