NYCPHP Meetup

[Cliff Hirsch]

On 2/26/07 6:28 PM, "csnyder" <chsnyder at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/26/07, Cliff Hirsch <cliff at pinestream.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  I'm seeing more and more applications that simply do not work if JavaScript
>> is turned off. In fact, I'm looking at purchasing a slick shopping cart that
>> seems great, but I think the lack of progressive fallback is a show stopper.
> 
> I'm a big fan of the "unobtrusive" approach, where you build
> interfaces in Plain Old HTML + CSS and then use wicked DOM mojo to
> convert them into rich applications on the client. If Javascript isn't
> available, everything still works but with a lot more clicking.
> 
> As an example, to add an inline audio player on a page, I'll send this
> to the browser:
> 
> <a href="/path/to/some.mp3" class="audioplayer">Click here to play the
> audio</a>
> 
> A window.onload event calls a javascript method that gets all <a>
> elements with class="audioplayer", and replaces them with a
> flash-based audio player, using the href attribute as the source of
> the audio.
> 
> Without javascript and flash, you get a dumb link. With those evil
> twins, you get a rich multimedia experience. As a bonus, the dumb link
> is (in theory) accessible to screen readers, which seems especially
> important for this particular example.

So far...a great discussion. See, I knew nobody had a strong opinion. In
theory, I am a fan of the progressive enhancement strategy. Reality is what
bits.

Example:
Do I buy X-Cart and add "Web 2.0" enhancements.
Or do I buy CS-Cart, a "next-genish" X-Cart, and make fallback work.
It's never simple.

BTW, DOM mojo? Yet another framework? I've heard of moca, but mojo? Must be
a New York thing. "Wicked"? I though only us Bostonians said that.

PSBTW -- for Chris, I have added my comment at the bottom!