Comments on: Flash vs. Ajax: rich clients on your web-site

By: Nur S

Nur S — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:43:00 +0000

It is not hard to produce a system that works really good even when there is no JS enabled, but if you say that JS is a system requirement you have something strong to rely on.

Just an example: WYSIWYG editor

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:36:51 +0000

Well that’s the point of graceful degradation – offer the service without breaking completely. No Flash? Replace with basic text and graphics (think sIRF). You could in fact use Google’s Gmail (or many other AJAXy services), it’s just that it has to keep on reloading the page all the time.

@Rea – it’s actually more common than you’d think. Considering that JavaScript is used to power the majority of ads (and Flash ads are often annoying), disabling both could actually improve one’s internet experience.

By: Rea Maor

Rea Maor — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:19:56 +0000

Indeed you are right Paul, but if you ask me, it’s VERY rare to find someone who disabled JavaScript capabilities from their browser

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:08:16 +0000

That’s always the problem of delivering dynamic client-based content: if the user does not have java, javascript or flash installed, the site will probably be broken. In the case of Flash the site will at least point to a way of downloading a player. If Javascritp is deactivated probably you will see nothing or just an empty space.

By: Tony

Tony — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 03:10:26 +0000

heh, ADD stands for Ajax Driven Development

Another important thing to consider would be graceful degradation – with JavaScript/Flash turned off on client-side, will the site still work? For users, it might be due to accessability/security/obscure-browser-settings reasons.