
Ruining the User Experience with AJAX - Elfan
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/ruininguserexperience
======
rfrey
In the beginning, there was HTML, and lo, there was much rejoicing among the
scientists. Content was king. HTML was to provide guidelines for presentation,
without dictating exact formatting. Lynx and Mosaic users existed in harmony.

Then came the .com rush, and with them, their horde of designers. Designers
used tables to wring miracles from HTML, all above the protests of the purists
-- "HTML is not a page description language!", "What about the Lynx users??"
etc.

But what the purists missed was that the landscape had changed. HTML was no
longer just about content: de facto, it had become about the presentation as
well. Eventually CSS caught up and specs mirrored reality.

Ironically, it's the designers, like the author, who are now missing the
context change. It's their turn to be the dinosaurs. Web 2.0 is not just about
more presentation options; spice and sugar on a page-oriented website. AJAX is
about building applications that use the browser as the environment.
Protesting that cell phone users won't be able to use the app is missing the
point. Do people complain that Writely doesn't work on a cellphone?

(Well, maybe they do. Stuff 'em! :)

~~~
jw
Sure, that may be what AJAX and Web 2.0 are about. But isn't the point of a
web site to provide some service? In the case of Lala, the service is to
facilitate CD trading (or something along those lines). To best provide that
service, do they really need Web 2.0 and AJAX? If they want to accomodate
users of mobile devices (and wouldn't they? every visitor is a potential
customer), then they should provide a working interface for those users.

On the other hand, if they think AJAX is the best way to provide their
service, that's up to them... it's their web site. I think the author really
means that they should be designing for a wider audience if they want to
appease as many visitors as possible. Whether that demographic is important
enough to bother with is another question.

------
BrandonM
On the sites that use AJAX correctly and effectively, I must admit that the UI
is a marked improvement over past technologies. In many cases, though, it can
be overkill: a waste of bandwidth and programmer time (i.e. it would be
unnecessary for the Google home page to use AJAX to display search results).
As an occasional Lynx user, I really appreciate when a site keeps alternate
browsers in mind.

That said, I agree with jw that catering to users of ancient, insecure
browsers is probably a waste of time and a barrier to progress. I disagree
with a strict cost-benefit approach, however. As an analogy, Microsoft has
been benefiting from this phenomenon for years due to hardware companies who
only write Windows drivers, while NVidia is a good example of a hardware
company which provides open source drivers and receives loyalty and sales
opportunities because of it. Additionally, supporting cell phone users and the
visually impaired is certainly a good idea, even if only a small percentage of
visitors fall into these categories.

Of course, as numerous others mentioned, it's important to be aware of your
target audience, but don't be surprised if your actual audience does not
necessarily match the one you have in mind.

------
zhyder
While I agree AJAX apps should gracefully degrade when Javascript is disabled,
I personally like the (Javascript-enabled) UI at Lala.com. I'm not sure I
agree every service must be accessible everywhere.

It depends on the app. I'd really like to be able to check my Gmail and
calendar on my cell phone. But I won't mind if I can't load Youtube or Flickr.

Know your target audience.

------
jw
I agree that you should know your target audience, but I think it's also a
cost-benefit issue. I'm all for making your page accessible to as many people
as possible, but in many cases it's not practical to cater to the 3 hits per
month that for some reason still use Netscape 4.x.

I disagree with the article that you might need to "dig out some old favorites
like @import" for older browsers. As discussed in "To Hell With Bad Browsers"
( <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohell> ), you shouldn't have to deal
with people who refuse to use a modern browser. (Hmm that was 6 years ago
now... am I old?)

I agree with the article that it's illogical to load an entire page with AJAX
and not have a non-javascript option, but I think the whole 3-level scheme is
overkill in some cases. I think it comes back to knowing your audience, and
designing your site so that they will be able to use it how they want.

------
Goladus
Reddit renders in lynx. The reply boxes aren't hidden in the comments list,
and I can't log in. Otherwise the site is easily usable.

I can load lala.com, and do get a nice description of the page (which is
better than some sites!). I can access the search field, but can't change the
categories. I can't press the search button.

I'd be interested to know the reason why, for example, they chose to set up
their categories like that, rather than using some sort of radio button form.
And if they're going to use AJAX, why not make the "tabs" look like actual
tabs? What benefits are gained by having a search button that can't be pressed
without javascript?

