Re: submit form...created with php
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Actual research. Over 99% of users use Javascript compatible browsers.[/color]
>
> Rubbish, possibly the majority of browsers in the world are not script
> enabled (the ones shipped with the majority of mobile phones) Of
> course they're rarely used, especially on sites that TheCounter uses.[/color]
Hmmm, somebody can't read. What does that say up there? "99% of users USE
Javascript compatible browsers". Not the majority of browsers in the world
are script enabled. Who cares if the majority of cell phone browsers don't
support Javascript. The majority of cell phone browsers are NEVER used.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If
> >TheCounter.c om is reporting 5%, more than 4% of that is people who have
> >Javascript turned off.[/color]
>
> Right... and they use statistically representative sample because?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Not if it's a commercial site. Then it's the competition's luck. Or
> >> the ADA (or similar other-nationality legislation) litigation lawyers'
> >> luck[/color]
> >
> >At this time web sites are not required to conform to the ADA, although a
> >few people have brought court cases, nobody has won yet. Even if the ADA
> >did apply[/color]
>
> Remember he said or similar other nationality.[/color]
International lawsuits regarding accessibility are going to be EXTREMELY
rare if they ever happen at all and they are extremely hard for the
plaintiff to win unless you actively market to the specific country that the
unhappy visitor is in.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Redesigning a site to ADA standards would be too costly and
> >take too many man hours for many commercial sites.[/color]
>
> Ooops! Unfortunately that defence didn't work in SOCOG-Maguire and
> won't elsewhere, simply because it's patently not true, and there are
> of lots of genuine experts capable of standing up in court and saying
> it.[/color]
Now who's talking rubbish. For every "genuine expert" that says one thing
there's another "genuine expert" who says the complete opposite. It all
depends on what your web site offers. Interactive, multimedia rich sites
can be next to impossible to conform to such accessibility standards. If
the site is mostly text based content, then sure, making it accessible is
much easier. It also depends on the size of the site.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Losing less than 1% of my visitors to a competitor's site
> >doesn't bother me, because I'm gaining exponentially more customers by
> >having a much better site than my competitors.[/color]
>
> Except of course, he chose to employe competent techniques, and his
> site not only works without javascript, but is also more visible to
> google, and works for all his customers.[/color]
I have no problem with my visibility in Google (I rank higher than the
majority of my competitors) or any other search engines. The competitors'
sites may have been created with "competent techniques" as defined by a 7
year old document, but their sites are static, uninteresting, horribly
designed, and not very useful. That's not just my opinion. I have heard it
many, many times from people who have migrated to my business. My
competitors are losing customers because they hasn't updated their sites to
what today's customers want. My business is booming while several of my
competitors have gone under. Since adding more interactive features with
Javascript, Flash, etc. my numbers have spiked even more.
By the way, you act as if I said that my sites are 100% javascript. They
are still accessible by non-javascript enabled browsers, but some features
might not be completely functional as they were intended. I use Javascript
mostly for client-side form validation which is then run through server-side
validation as well. Menus have rollovers that work fine with non-javascript
browsers. I test my sites thoroughly with many different browsers.
So, go ahead and follow your 7 year old W3C HTML standards as strictly as
you can. I'm sure you have it all printed out, nicely bound, in a
protective sleeve, and under your pillow. You are obviously a follower,
while others of us choose to drive. Those who drive tend to get ahead while
others play catch-up. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a ton of web
customers to assist.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >Actual research. Over 99% of users use Javascript compatible browsers.[/color]
>
> Rubbish, possibly the majority of browsers in the world are not script
> enabled (the ones shipped with the majority of mobile phones) Of
> course they're rarely used, especially on sites that TheCounter uses.[/color]
Hmmm, somebody can't read. What does that say up there? "99% of users USE
Javascript compatible browsers". Not the majority of browsers in the world
are script enabled. Who cares if the majority of cell phone browsers don't
support Javascript. The majority of cell phone browsers are NEVER used.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > If
> >TheCounter.c om is reporting 5%, more than 4% of that is people who have
> >Javascript turned off.[/color]
>
> Right... and they use statistically representative sample because?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Not if it's a commercial site. Then it's the competition's luck. Or
> >> the ADA (or similar other-nationality legislation) litigation lawyers'
> >> luck[/color]
> >
> >At this time web sites are not required to conform to the ADA, although a
> >few people have brought court cases, nobody has won yet. Even if the ADA
> >did apply[/color]
>
> Remember he said or similar other nationality.[/color]
International lawsuits regarding accessibility are going to be EXTREMELY
rare if they ever happen at all and they are extremely hard for the
plaintiff to win unless you actively market to the specific country that the
unhappy visitor is in.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Redesigning a site to ADA standards would be too costly and
> >take too many man hours for many commercial sites.[/color]
>
> Ooops! Unfortunately that defence didn't work in SOCOG-Maguire and
> won't elsewhere, simply because it's patently not true, and there are
> of lots of genuine experts capable of standing up in court and saying
> it.[/color]
Now who's talking rubbish. For every "genuine expert" that says one thing
there's another "genuine expert" who says the complete opposite. It all
depends on what your web site offers. Interactive, multimedia rich sites
can be next to impossible to conform to such accessibility standards. If
the site is mostly text based content, then sure, making it accessible is
much easier. It also depends on the size of the site.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Losing less than 1% of my visitors to a competitor's site
> >doesn't bother me, because I'm gaining exponentially more customers by
> >having a much better site than my competitors.[/color]
>
> Except of course, he chose to employe competent techniques, and his
> site not only works without javascript, but is also more visible to
> google, and works for all his customers.[/color]
I have no problem with my visibility in Google (I rank higher than the
majority of my competitors) or any other search engines. The competitors'
sites may have been created with "competent techniques" as defined by a 7
year old document, but their sites are static, uninteresting, horribly
designed, and not very useful. That's not just my opinion. I have heard it
many, many times from people who have migrated to my business. My
competitors are losing customers because they hasn't updated their sites to
what today's customers want. My business is booming while several of my
competitors have gone under. Since adding more interactive features with
Javascript, Flash, etc. my numbers have spiked even more.
By the way, you act as if I said that my sites are 100% javascript. They
are still accessible by non-javascript enabled browsers, but some features
might not be completely functional as they were intended. I use Javascript
mostly for client-side form validation which is then run through server-side
validation as well. Menus have rollovers that work fine with non-javascript
browsers. I test my sites thoroughly with many different browsers.
So, go ahead and follow your 7 year old W3C HTML standards as strictly as
you can. I'm sure you have it all printed out, nicely bound, in a
protective sleeve, and under your pillow. You are obviously a follower,
while others of us choose to drive. Those who drive tend to get ahead while
others play catch-up. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a ton of web
customers to assist.
Comment