Re: New Group for DesignBAIS
- From: "Tom deL" <ted@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Aug 2005 08:04:19 -0700
Hi Chandru,
Sorry about the delay. Pesky paying clients, anyway. <G>
<SNIP>
> > That one should disingenuously suggest that playing with the toys is
> > somehow equivalent to deploying a business web site for a client? My
> > original comment was clearly in the context of the latter.
>
> Don't understand what this is about. What toys? Your original comment:
<SNIP>
Toys: Sorry, perhaps unfortunate shorthand for 'using the technology
because it is there'.
> >Can you give me an example of the sort of specs that require you to
> > use such bleeding edge technology that you intentionally reduce your
> > clients' target audience? In my experience, doing the 'fancy stuff'
> > on the server and using widely supported technology to deliver it to
> > as many browsers as possible has been the best approach + comment on
> > Flash.
>
> I am talking precisely about "deploying a business web site for a client" as
> opposed to just a web site, though I would use the phrase "business browser
> data solution" to distinguish it from a mere presentational web site.
Is the intent of this Business Browser Data Solution (TM) to present
your client's services and/or wares to prospective customers or
clients?
Since in this thread Dawn states that she isn't concerned with lost
visitors (the point of my involvement in this thread), can you give me
an example of a client's specs that would cause you to intentionally
not support one of the major browsers? I will be the first to admit
that I have been doing this too long and maybe am stuck in old ideas.
> >> It's not that you're using "bleeding edge technology", it's just that you
> >> have to be acutely aware of the quirks of the browsers.
> > <Much common knowledge SNIPped>
>
> Wasn't too common to me when I started, which one of the points of this
> thread. Browsers are touted as whatever-compliant, and they're not.
Again, these have been facts of life for me for so long that I assume
everyone knows about them. One of my old ideas is a rule that I have
used for years: The browser wars should only impact me (as a site
creator), not my clients.
> > Yes and some of us have been doing this for many years. A reading of my
> > comments would show that doing this is precisely what I was suggesting
> > to be appropriate for designing a business web site for a client.
> >
> > Surely you can comprehend that 'creating a rich browser experience' or
> > even deploying an in-house web based data access solution have vastly
> > different requirements than does presenting a corporate web site.
> > -Tom
>
> Again, I think Dawn and others are, and certainly I am, not talking about
> presentational websites, be they "corporate web sites" or artist's web
> sites. I'm talking about a BUI (browser user-interface, to satisfy Tony),
> which displays data and other elements from a database, interactively, in
> this case happening to be Pick. It uses elements commonly used in
> presentational web sites, but is mechanically generated so database
> applications can be initiated rapidly, conistently and repeatably.
In other words, your needs seem to fit into 'b.' below. If this is the
case then this is all moot. My original comments were regarding
presence or marketing web sites ('merely' presentational or otherwise).
By 'presence' I mean those intended to sell goods and services to
prospective clients.
> So what do I not comprehend?
>>From somewhere Northwest of Knockemstiff, Ohio it appears that you
might be missing the distinction between situations such as:
a. An experimental, educational or proof of concept site such as Dawn's
example. In this case she expressly does not care about lost customers.
b. An internal data solution or intranet site. In this situation one
can pretty well dictate what browser will be used since all 'customers'
will be employees or business associates.
c. A 'presence' site intended to entice folks to purchase whatever it
is that our client wishes to sell.
Elsewhere you tout your lack of marketing acumen. Marketing is
obviously not one of my strong suits either. One thing I have learned
however: The marketing folks tend to get mighty crabby when prospects
are chased away before even being exposed to their efforts. Since (in
this context at least) my work is subordinate to theirs, I need to
listen to them <g>
Basically I am saying that we should not reduce our clients' exposure.
I have yet to see any reason to intentionally reduce the audience for
my clients by requiring the use of browser 'A' or plugin 'B'. No, I
don't support PDA's or intentionally weird browsers. Yes, if it shows
anything approaching a 10% level of market share I will certainly try.
maps.google.com is an excellent example of using pretty sophisticated
technology in a context that makes sense. Do your clients have needs
that press the abilities of browsers beyond something like this?
Note that virtually all modern browsers are supported by
maps.google.com. Epiphany, Firefox, IE5.5+, Netscape7+, Galeon, and
Safari all work with nary a glitch.
With Safari's close cousin Konqueror the first page squawks, suggesting
a list of browsers which are supported. An option is presented to 'try
anyway'. When selecting this option, everything seems to work fine
excepting the first page (a map of the US for me). I suspect that this
failure might be tied to the warning (perhaps a simple oversight and
Konqueror isn't in the list?)
Do we owe our clients less than this?
-Tom
.
- Prev by Date: nailed ports using ssh on D3/Linux?
- Next by Date: Re: Shooting from the hip ...
- Previous by thread: nailed ports using ssh on D3/Linux?
- Next by thread: Jet for UniVerse Installation disks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
