Status von drak (drak) auf Tuesday, 07-Jan-14 05:36:07 UTC

drak quix0r

@quix0r on #twitter this evolved into a slightly longer (but one-sided) discussion: drak: @adaptivepattern For blind people: Just write clean HTML+CSS pages. Blind people can use those easily. drak: @adaptivepattern: It is 2014: Good webdesign with strong basics: If you require Javascript to read email archives, you do it wrong drak: adaptivepattern: @ArneBab ~ #UX and #JavaScript are not mutually exclusive. A false choice? For #RIA and #SPA, #JS is UX... drak: @adaptivepattern #Javascript makes for horrible #UX, except if you want to constrain your users to have exactly one UX. drak: @adaptivepattern And if you’re going to push #json streams for API-users, why not write clean HTML in the first place? drak: @adaptivepattern The best pages for information I know are simple, static HTML+CSS sites. Also see http://xkcd.com/1309/ drak: @adaptivepattern or click somewhere next to the timeline in #twitter to hide the autocomplete and see your tweet content disappear #grr drak: @adaptivepattern or watch http://xkcd.com/1264/ . Or try to use #itsalltext with G+. #JS = #incompatible, #incoherent #UX drak: @adaptivepattern #damn, now I have to archive all these tweets by hand, because I did not use a client to escape the twitter-ux constraints. drak: @adaptivepattern I see only 2 good reasons for requiring #Javascript: (1/2): Updating small portions of the site without disturbing the user drak: @adaptivepattern and (2/2) deploying cross-platform apps to people who do not control their computers. (1/2) can still keep #JS optional. drak: @adaptivepattern And I know very few examples of full apps in #Javascript which actually yield advantages for the users.