Sent by aardvark on 14 June 2002 14:02
> From: Alex Russell [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
[...]
> Making assumptions about what will and won't be relative is kind of
> humorous in the context of the web. We have NO control. We can suggest
[...]
this is actually what i was saying...
[snip px vs. point discussion, since that's not why i posted]
> > bloat, to me, is any unnecessary code that doesn't need to be
> > there... a style switcher for sizes alone doesn't need to be there,
>
> Are you trying to provide a snappy user interface? If so, the the
> benefit of 1 or 2 k more of code (that can be cached on subsequent
> pages) can significantly outweigh it's negatives. Seriously, if UI
> experiece is the reason behind your argument (or even efficency), then
> your case against a client-side style switcher (which can, of course,
> be used in conjunction with a server side utility) is pretty weak.
it wasn't against a client-side switcher in conjunction with a server-
side switcher, it was against a client-side switcher with no support
for a user without client-side script enabled...
i don't use the JS version on my site because it's had too many
problems for users, so instead of JS errors or a switcher that won't
switch, i reduced it to the server-side version only... now it works
for everyone... yes, real-time would be snappier, but on *my* site, it
penalizes some users...
i think i unintentionally pushed a button somewhere, because
you're making assertions about what i said/wrote/built that aren't
accurate... all i said was that the ALA switcher didn't work for me,
so i rolled a server-side version... otherwise, i've avoided the px/pt
debate altogether since both sides are right/wrong...
[...]
> ok, so why not do the right thing and provide both?
see above -- it was the wrong thing... the code i grabbed threw
errors for some of my users... read the article i posted earlier...
> I think your argument against the client-side switcher is a bit lame
> here. You would rather incurr _another_ 24K of throughput (and server
> load to boot) instead of letting the client do the work for you? How
> does that mesh with your philosophy of efficency at all costs? Might
> not be _strictly_ necessaray, but then again, neither are stylesheets
> in the first place, and I don't see you questioning their usefulness.
> Maybe I'm missing something...
well, i don't care about server load -- i control that... the user
doesn't *have* to incur the 24k again, because the switcher i use is
only for colors (the units are selected so that user can change the
size within the browser)... and sometimes, the client can't do the
work for me (errors, nothing at all, disabled JS)...
i think the thing you are missing is that i had two points in my
initial post which have been reworded into something else:
1. i don't like the ALA switcher(s) because it relies solely on JS
2. i rolled my own in ASP
nowhere in my article do i prevent JS from firing it, or even taking
over for the switcher... i even suggest where to put it... but i only
offer the non-JS version in the article since that work has been
done elsewhere...
and now we're getting off-topic (the pt/px was declared dead by
eric, but now we've strayed into server/client-side processing)...
--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035
