My friend you've misconstrued my view on this. Web sites that require advancing technologies are not in and of themselves bad, but web sites that depend on them and do not explain to the visitor *why* the web is not displaying full content ARE bad.

In other words, or for example, when I visit your lightality skin I get a page with titles and a few post-related links. I NEVER see any content! What exactly is the point of that? I see nothing telling me to enable Javascript (or anything else for that matter), and even when I do enable Javascript temporarily I still don't see any content. Just titles and post-related links. BTW the post related links (such as category, date, author) lead me to a similar problem page: titles in nice backgrounds, but NO content.

Why would someone visit a page like that? Suppose I knew the content was valuable to me. Would I have to change browsers to see your web? Maybe I'm missing a plugin or extension, but how would I know that?

The issue is not one of using advancing technologies to display content in enhanced manners. The issue is one of blindly assuming your potential audience magically knows what you expect them to have and are willing to install (aka trust) the new technology.

Oh and eventually you'll be able to see your stats and say "look at how many different browsers and OSs visit my web!" but you'll never see data regarding how many people visited once and moved on because of your chosen expectations.

a quick note, google does have a NON javascript gmail site.

on ed's line of thinking, I have to agree with the "how do you know" aspect..
Think about how apple quicktime and flash objects alert you "download a plugin", "install flash", etc..

Frankly, a site that relies completely on javascript for functioing is a waste, but thats JUST me-- and I wouldnt discourage anyone from doing it just because I happen to think that.

Though I use js on my own site in some places Ive taken the time to account for those users that might not have it enabled, and my usage of it degrades perfectly (EXCEPT for the hardened trackbacks, and I tell people they need js to use it). I dont assume that everyone uses it, after all.

In the end, its up to the person whos site is. If your core audience happened to be Chinese people, I doubt you would use French as your primary language.

We, atleast I hope we do, know our target audiences well enough to make those individual decisions.

-------------

Regarding AJAX in general -- It's been sadly overhyped by the likes of /.

@EdB
Just to point it off, in my Lightality skin you will see this:
------------------------------
|Avatar|Post Title | Icons |
------------------------------
If you click the bottom left icon in the icons section the posts will show up.
Making this aware to the user is on my ToDo list, but i have many other things to focus on first.

Lightality is not just what you see, it's also all the code that goes on behind.

I also spend countless hours making Lightality avaliable to all browsers:
Firefox 1.5, IE6, IE7, and Opera support is coming.
And for the Icons it Requires Flash8, I have made it so if the user has a old version or doesnt have the Flash Plugin, it is made known to them that they do require Flash.
As for Javascript, i only became aware by you, that some people actually disable javascript, I will include detection and a notification that Javascript is Needed.

The Javascript is only required for the Panels, that Layout (SideBars), and that Postskin, I will include many alternative versions of Layouts and PostSkins.

And i will TRY and make the Panels avaliable for NonJavascript users (Disabling Dragging, Killing, and Hiding).

@Whoo I said that in the first post... It's the only Online Appication that i mentioned that does have a reason for downgrading and that is shown.

Grrr Whoo you edited your post ;)

Yes i agree, in that area, a notification should be displayed, and i have done this for the flash plugins.
But i thought javascript would be a standard and was not aware that there are people who disable it.

As for AJAX, it is overhyped, but it is a very valuable technology, use Google/IG, use Mail.Live.com, use Live.com and you will see the direction the Web is going, Hence Web 2.0.

And for my site my target audience is experienced users at PCs, but Lightality will be for everyone, so i am spending ALOT of time making it work for everyone.

As for AJAX, it is overhyped, but it is a very valuable technology

mmm... im not sure I would agree with the latter 1/2 of that statement. I think if you were really honest, it's a toy, just like flash. I happen to LOVE flash, so i tend to argue its usefulness. The same could be true of you and AJAX. 8|

In fact, I have THE absolutely leetest flash clock that I want to put on my site, and cant seem to find a place for it. Truth be told, no-one really needs a web site to tell them what time it is, we ALL know. But, damn I love toys!!

I haven't actually used AJAX in any of my work, (Lightality only uses one little bit of it, the XmlHttpRequest thing, but no one understands that so i say Ajax ;))

But i see Online Applications as the future, and of course you want to work towards your vision of the future (just like you reinforcing flash and its usefullness).

In my future I don't see a browser, i see the OS as a online entity, where their is no bridge between Online Applications and Desktop Applications.

I want to see the move from WebSites to Online Applications, So say MSN.com I want to see that in the future as a pair of gadgets running on my desktop.

The vision is there, and it is shared, it's just going to take some time.

Some examples of the move is; Gadgets/Widgets, Web 2.0, Syndication, Xbox 360, Media Center, even Flash!

Even someone on this forum (buggedcom), is porting the backoffice of b2evolution into a true ajax application!
http://forums.b2evolution.net//viewtopic.php?p=30659#30659

fwiw, I do understand XmlHttpRequest -- enough to know that its an ms baby, however adopted its been by other parents and frankly, thats a whoooole nother can of worms. As is the rest of your post above.

I do NOT subscribe to the ms notion of "no browser" and the current seperation that exists between my desktop and the 'net suits me just fine. Toss out all the app names you like, no matter.

Look at google desktop search for instance.. the tribulations and issues with that are well documented. DO I really WANT, much less need that? Absolutely not.

I also disagree with the statement that that "vision" is shared. It isnt -- its merely being forced down the mouths of everyone.

PS: I have 3 friends that currrently work or have worked at ms.. I argue this sort of crap with them pretty regularly.

I do NOT subscribe to the ms notion of "no browser" and the current seperation that exists between my desktop and the 'net suits me just fine. Toss out all the app names you like, no matter.

Sure, the line between web and desktop is fine, people have no problems with it.

But y not make it better? like that vision is trying to achieve? what downsides could that vision possibly have? (don't mention security).

Edit: What your saying is like, y work on the next version of OS, or Application, this one works just fine, and i'm happy with it.

I also disagree with the statement that that "vision" is shared. It isnt -- its merely being forced down the mouths of everyone.

Why would they need to force it down our mouths?
It's not destroying the way the web is atm, its just upgrading and making it better?
Can you really see any disadvantages in this vision?

you assume that what youre suggesting, or rather what "they" are, is better.

"what downsides could that vision possibly have?"

Dont mention security? why not? because that has the greatest potential for problems? data theft, etc? how 'bout privacy? prolly dont want to entertain those issues either, eh. OK, fine you dont want to address the TWO largest problems -- sounds very microsoftian of you, indeed.

"Why would they need to force it down our mouths?"

They dont need to force it down your mouth, apparantly -- youre already in the parade.

As to the why..

Sorry to say, that not everyone buys into the "I want to blink my eyes and be online" idea. I bring that odd idea in because I entertained a notion whereby newborns would be embedded with a chip behind one eye and with a thought could simply turn on the 'net in their head.

THAT is a very scary idea for ALOT of people. Myself included.

--

I missed out in my editing that a good deal of what you said in the previous post is opinion, "make it better" etc.. All yet to be proven.

I said don't mention security and privacy because they will always be a issue, and will always be worked on and developed, so if we suddenly go YeeHa lets go make everything online 5 years ago we would be screwed, but in the future (when the technologie is ready) y not?

Sorry to say, that not everyone buys into the "I want to blink my eyes and be online" idea. I bring that odd idea in because I entertained a notion whereby newborns would be embedded with a chip behind one eye and with a thought could simply turn on the 'net in their head.

THAT is a very scary idea for ALOT of people. Myself included.

I am one of those people who think that is also a great idea.
I have a strong interest in things that invlovle this.

The multi platform games Deus Ex, and Deus Ex: Invisible War, goes in alot of depth about this issue, and what the pros and cons are.

Why is this idea so scary?
(PS. We should probably start up another thread for this idea ;))

Ah. I see now. Hidden content, though it gets downloaded with the initial page. That means I enjoy the full bandwidth hit without enjoying the full content. Hmm... Nonetheless, without any indication that I have to trust your javascripts I won't ever see your content.

You're not aware that people disable javascript?

EdB wrote:

Ah. I see now. Hidden content, though it gets downloaded with the initial page. That means I enjoy the full bandwidth hit without enjoying the full content. Hmm... Nonetheless, without any indication that I have to trust your javascripts I won't ever see your content.

You're not aware that people disable javascript?

Well i wasnt, but now i am, the only way i can see a javascript test working is:
If the cookies 'JavascriptEnabled' is not true, then display a page with a javascript redirect to the page with ?JavascriptEnabled=true, and display a text link to ?JavascriptEnabled=false.

As for the whole 'full page load' thing, i will work on other PostSkins, and also work on a full Ajax version of Lightality.

I was just thinking about something else. The idea that the code is strong (good, crisp, focused - whatever) matters a heck of a lot, but not near as much as the visitor's experience. Cuz figure the visitor doesn't know about the code that makes the page happen - they only know about the page they get.

Am I correct in understanding that the lightality skin makes cookies? Or is that a place you'll go to deal with non-javascript enabled browsers? Looks like I've got no cookie from your site, so I'm guessing it's a place you're thinking on going. Do you assume I allow cookies from anyone out there? I currently do, but don't have to. I go through my cookies from time to time and permanently ban cookies from sites I don't think have any reason to cookie me, which mostly means sites I visit but don't log in to, but there are others. Mostly ad-related cookies eh? Occasionally a web I visit for information will cookie me. I ban their cookies too. If it stops the page from loading oh well. I really like it when commerce-related sites cookie me without my permission. I guess they don't want my business after all eh?

In fact that's one of the biggest drawbacks to upgrading my Firefox. All I get now is the tiny little box Firefox gives for cookie management. I miss my cookie button extension :(

My ultimate point is that you as the author of a web site shouldn't make assumptions about your visitor's browsing preferences.

Ben wrote:

If you click the bottom left icon in the icons section the posts will show up.
Making this aware to the user is on my ToDo list, but i have many other things to focus on first.

What's more important than content? If ppl can't see your content, then what's the point? Content, security, accessiblity ... gadgetry is the LAST thing, not the first.

I'm not the only person having a difficult time FINDING the content on your site, technological requirements aside.

Speaking of which ... Ben wrote:

I also spend countless hours making Lightality avaliable to all browsers:
Firefox 1.5, IE6, IE7

IE7 isn't out (yet), to my knowledge, and as far as IE6 goes ... I still CAN'T read your posts, because in my IE6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 version ... I get an "undetermined" javascript error when I click on the flash link that OPENS the post. (Even though I DO have JS enabled and have the latest from MacroMedia).

You equate graceful degredation with "downgrade" ... like it's a bad thing. IMO ... access to your content is something you WANT. Why limit ppl? Let those with the latest technologies, SEE your pages. But, why punish those that don't have it ... it only makes you (the web designer) look bad. ("Why doesn't this site WORK? Ah ... forget it ... crappy site.") Why not make your content (presuming, of course, that you have something worthwhile to say) available to EVERYONE? THat's what accessibility is all about.

Your mind seems to be closed on the matter, but no-one (so far) ahd jumped to defend your line of thinking.

Accessibility doesn't mean "don't use the latest, greatest stuff" ... it means ... let EVERYONE get to the heart of your site ... the content. Whiz bangers get the great, full-blown JS, Flash experience. Non whiz-bangers get something slightly less whizz-bang ... but AT LEAST THEY GET SOMETHING. Either spread your message to everyone or post a note on the door - "Private Club - Membership by JS, Flash and FFox only". (BTW - Accessibility isn't just an after-thought ... in many countries, it's a legal requirement and probably even more countries will adopt a similar policy).

I just would like you to OPEN YOUR MIND a little bit on this topic. I'm not agains JS and Flash, per se ... just against making a site DEPENDENT upon it.[/quote]

stk wrote:

I'm not agains JS and Flash, per se ... just against making a site DEPENDENT upon it.

Well said, though if I had half a brain I'd have said it better ;)

Lots of 'advanced' stuff will become commonplace. Likewise some commonplace stuff will be deemed not worth using. Javascript was once *it* but has been deemed too open to abuse to continue widespread use. It serves for gimmicks and inhouse applications, but don't be your web on it. Cookies will be the next 'normal' thing to go the way of the betamax. Most sites don't need them, and you can always ask your visitor if it's okay to drop a cookie before you drop one. B2evolution drops a cookie if the visitor changes skins. I think there should be a warning beforehand, but I don't allow skin switching so it's not an issue to me to sweat.

OTOH one can easily say "I make my web for the pleasure it brings me and if some visitors don't like it or get it that's there problem". I have no argument against such a view. In fact I embrace it!!! I should rebuild my eyesore skin. Gross color schemes that randomly changed with each page load. Double Bagger Ugly, BUT MINE! Thus if one is comfortable with their web their way then who cares if it's not accessible to an unknown range of others?

Believe me i am open/trying to make it accessable for everyone.

Lightality features things like PostSkins and Layouts.
So I think you can tell which is which.

I still need to work on the code, before i start continue work on more PostSkins and layouts.

EdB, I'll be using cookies alot, so far on the site you will see them in;
Panel Information (Where they are, are they collapsed, are they killed)
Avatar Information (Which AvatarStyle do you want, Blog, Author, Category, None)
And when I've finished the Customization bits for the other Classes then you will see them for:
Backgrounds, PostSkins, Layouts.
You can see all the Cookies set by me as 'Lightality->CookieName'.
Also try the AnEC Cookie Editor Extension for Firefox.

stk, Thats a common problem if your not using Flash8, but it should of detected if you wernt...
IE7 is currently in BETA2, At home i am running Opera 8.51, Firefox 1.5, IE7 BETA 2, and IE6 SP2.
Opera is the most whacked out of the browsers, it has some real wierd issues, like not updating certain parts of the site, when the panels are moved.
I am trying to make everything work on Opera, but I do not believe it is 'worth' it, than just downgrading the site.

I think now i will include config files for the layouts that say wether they need flash, javascript, and non-compatiable browsers.

But my 'gut' is telling me if you dont use Flash8, Javascript, Cookies, and IE or Firefox, you probably shouldnt be at this site.
But then all you compatiability freaks won't bother giving Lightality a shot.

See because the Panels require Javascript, so now i need to make a 'basic' version of the panels for Non-Javascript and Opera users.
And then only this current PostSkin requires Flash8.

As i said on my blog, i will include the custom skin as a layout and postskin, as well as a few modifications of the current layout and postskin.

Ben,

The Shockwave Flash Object file in my IE6sp2 addons manager is Flash8.ocx :|

since youre mentioning flash 8 -- i have to question whether or not Macromedia (yes I know its wrong, Adobe just doesnt seem to work well for me), itself, doesnt accomodate for those users that might still be using a previous version. I have NEVER come across a flash object that prompted me for an upgrade and I wasnt using the latest v8 player for quite some time.

I know too from compiling some of my own objects.... hmm.. I should just test that and see for myself.

also, on a final note (for me atleast) I dont like the usage of the word "downgrade" in the topic title. The correct term is "degrade". Much could be said about your choice of terms, bal ;)

and on a final final note -- scott, you might be pleased to note that v-i was mentioned in a thread over on the "other site" as a favorite design for a blog (1 of 3 but hey who's counting).

Whoo, Yes with Macromedia whenever they release a new version of flash they want you to upgrade.
But you will only be told to upgrade if the Website Developer wants you to.

Before the functions that i'm using in Lightality worked well with Flash 7, but then Macromedia cut it out of 7 and now its a Flash 8 exclusive feature...

Stk, will it be possible for you to post a copy of the exact error message or any details that you can give me on it? Your a unique case...

"Whoo, Yes with Macromedia whenever they release a new version of flash they want you to upgrade.
But you will only be told to upgrade if the Website Developer wants you to. "

haha, thanks for that mr. obvious. I DO own copies of flash mx 2004 and flash pro 8. thanks ;)

that wasnt my point anyway -- my point was that an object created with 8 will NOT necessarily break completely if you are using an older player. I am sure you can force a break, but its not a given.

again, its called degrading gracefully.

The actual flash can be compiled in flash 5 if i wanted but because macromedia made the feature of setting variables via javascript flash 8 exclusive instead of flash 5 and above, i require users to upgrade to flash 8.

I know alteratively i could do: icons.swf?varshere but then your loading an extra 5x11kb for each page. instead of 1 cached swf.

hahaha, nice topic title change :) my work here is done!!

hehe :P

Actually i mean;
What title change, it was like that all along ;)

For Lightality i've made it more obvious that you need to click that icon to see the post. If they don't notice it, then they definitly should not be using that PostSkin.

Also i've customized the way Panels are displayed, so when you first go to the site you get the 'Un-Advanced Panels' and you must then choose to Enable the Advanced Panels.

I will also work on the rest of the JS related things in lightality, and try and make sure it meets compatiability and compliance standards.

Any coments on the changes?

the link in your sig doesnt work, neither does your current WWW link. Im off to play with my new google maps toy -- have been messing with 3rd party hosting of mapstats, but Ive finally figured out how to do it myself w/o the 3rd party -- mucho cool. Now I just need to figure out how to trim the logs automagically.

My server struggles try this one:
http://blogs.balupton.nghosting.info/

I will also work on the rest of the JS related things in lightality, and try and make sure it meets compatiability and compliance standards.

Any coments on the changes?

It's great that you finally realised that we're talking degradation and not downgrading, but you're still approaching things a tad arse backwards (lol, dunno how that'll translate into Oz)

What you need to do is disable js and flash and then hit your site. You then want to change everything so that the panels/content etc are visable with no extra clicks required (you also want to ensure that your png curtains are "open" not "closed").

Once you've got all that done, re-enable flash and javascript and then change your js so that it "closes" things to the (current) default state (ie, content hidden, curtains closed etc).

The end result is that you'll have a site that "fails open" if js is disabled instead of "fails closed" like it does now.

¥

Ben wrote:

Stk, will it be possible for you to post a copy of the exact error message or any details that you can give me on it? [sic]Your a unique case...

http://blogs.balupton.nghosting.info/

Seems to now automatically refer me to the MacroMedia download site, where I can download Flash 8 (which I have already) and Yahoo Toolbar (which I don't want).

I can't duplicate the error in IE, to provide any more feedback. All it was, was one error and it said [line #, char # "unspecified error"]. Hope that helps.

LOL @ unique case. Most just say "nut case".

Redirect aside, I'll bet I'm not the only one (that gets a JS error in IE), just the only one that's brought it to your attention.

I can't really comment on the changes, because I can't SEE the changes. :-/ (You must be working on things?)

When you get the cross-browser support, accessibility issues and validation stuff taken care of ... the Lightality skin will be something special indeed.

Ok the next and last Major release of Lightality is in testing on my server.

Lightality (v1.0.0.0 BETA Dev) is now in testing on my server.
http://blogs.balupton.nghosting.info/

The Backend is 'Feature-Complete', the only updates to come are;
BugFixes and Customizations to the 'Lightality (Rich)' PostSkin.

I hope you enjoy this release and can see what Lightality can bring to Blogging.

-balupton
---
For all you Standards and Compliance People;
Lightality is Compliant with Opera 8.5, IE6, Firefox 1.5 and IE7 BETA 2.
It supports people who do not have Javascript Enabled, or the Flash Plugin.

And for stuff related on Lightality lets use:
http://forums.b2evolution.net/viewtopic.php?t=5841&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

One other point to consider is the search engines. They do not like Flash or Java Script. A site that depends heavily on these will have more trouble marketing the site with the SEs.

For example, I could not find any cache, backlinks or other info in google about the site: http://blogs.balupton.nghosting.info/index.php, although I did find 2 returns in MSN and 2 backlinks in Yahoo.

I love Flash. But if my flash nav makes the nav invisible to the SEs, I can't justify using it if I want my site to come up in SE results (unless I use IP cloaking to give the SE bots something to read).

Going back to an earlier point, maybe it is not important (making a site accessable, available in the SE results) to a particular site's owner.

Well seeing that the site that the Search Engines see is the Default / Standard Lightality, without Javascript and Flash, it is fine.

Right. Many designers do not have any clue about how search engines work. Too many do not realize how design choices affect search engine results.

Its fun to ask SEO clients to turn off java script, flash and images in their browser then reload their website. "There is nothing there" is a common response. Their website is invisible to the SEs if their web designer depended on java script, flash and images and/or did not provide an alternative.

Yer, it happened with the old builds of Lightality ;)
But with the latest one that you should be viewing now, by default it does not have any javascript or flash in it.

So the search engines will pick up the default site and be happy.
People without javascript and flash will pickup the default site and be happy.
People with javascript and flash will pickup the default site, and have the option to change to the more advanced stuff and be happy.

I hope all these steps help you meet your site's goals (and show off your coding and design skills) :)