Question about Forms

[Stomme poes]

I could go along with that, if accessibility actually cost more.

It sometimes costs me some testing time, but not much. It doesn't cost extra time coding at all (it might if I were bolting-on, but not if I'm in at the start and doing Built-in).

It sometimes costs me time researching (learning), but since that increases my value I'm not unhappy with that. The more I know, the better sites I can build.

And, this may be a matter of opinion, but I don't see the point in building sites that are broken for some. I don't consider it an extra thing the client has to ask for (accessibility, usability) any more than I pay extra for my car to have brakes. They should just come with brakes. And lights. And a horn. And paint on the outside. And seats inside.

Accessibility/usability isn't the same as, say, custom leopard striping leather seat covers. That would be... goofy Javascript effects that don't do anything helpful for users but make clients drool with happiness : )

Edit:

did I just say "leopard striping"? Good thing I'm not a zoologist

[Kalon]

I could go along with that, if accessibility actually cost more.

For me, it takes me longer to build a website that must be fully accessible and functional without javascript.

If a potential client needs full accessibility and is willing to pay for it then I am happy to spend the extra time and provide it.

Otherwise the client has the option to go to another developer who is prepared to do it for less. Either way if the client needs full accessibility, they will get full accessibility either from me or another developer.

I just don't see why I need to provide services for free when the client has other options.

[xhtmlcoder]

Typically the site should function without JavaScript first then you should charge extra to make it function with JavaScript.

Though I can understand 'generically' by what you mean that clients can be completely ignorant. Most clients would usually rather go for cheaper services over quality so long as it "looks nice", and "seems to work", etc.

[Stomme poes]

Most clients would usually rather go for cheaper services over quality so long as it "looks nice", and "seems to work", etc.

add "in Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP with scripts on and Flash installed".

which is better than "in Internet Explorer 6" by a hair : )

[cydewaze]

Maybe its because my office is required by law for all web pages to be accessible, but I'm so used to building accessible pages that I don't consider it extra work. In fact I consider it a best practice.

[Kalon]

Typically the site should function without JavaScript first then you should charge extra to make it function with JavaScript.

In an ideal world, yep totally agree .

But my main aim is to keep the cost to the client down to a minimum and since I can build a website faster and cheaper with javascript, then that is what I do by default unless the client specifies he/she requires functionality/accessibility without javascript which I charge extra for due to the extra work for me.

[TomTees]

Lovely conversation, but one that has nothing to do with my original question...


TomTees

[cydewaze]

Lovely conversation, but one that has nothing to do with my original question...

It's not uncommon in threads where the original question has been answered for the topic to spin off on a tangent.

[TomTees]

It's not uncommon in threads where the original question has been answered for the topic to spin off on a tangent.

And that it has!


TomTees

[Kalon]

It's not uncommon in threads where the original question has been answered for the topic to spin off on a tangent.

yep, it was pretty well answered back in post 14

[oddz]

Typically the site should function without JavaScript first then you should charge extra to make it function with JavaScript.

In a Utopian world yes, in the practical world no. Generally using JavaScript to achieve certain functionality breaks the natural flow of non-persistence. Take linked select drop downs for example. The only way to support that in a none persistent environment is to have the user know to hit the submit button each time. Supporting certain types of functional requirements in a persistent and non-persistent environment many times requires two very separate forms of logic, thus time, thus money. I do what I can, but with JavaScript becoming such a large piece of enhancing user experience through a persistent environment many times is more trouble than what it is worth. I guess you really don't have to deal with the issue that much if your not working directly with user input that is were most the issues come into play. Trying to make a form that is AJAX heavy non-persistent normally results in a convoluted mess, unless you redesign the entire flow for a non-persistent web experience maintaining two separate versions of the same thing. I think most users would agree that they rather have a persistent experience than one with constant refreshes and that is were JavaScript becomes a significant and many times functional requirements that just can't really be replicated in the non-persistent environment unless the logic is entirely changed. With most major sites such as; Facebook relying on JavaScript to achieve functional requirements I think its less of a problem than it us to be. You can only go so far with graceful degradation before it becomes wasted expenses based on the target market. Otherwise, your just flushing money and time down the toilet, for a few small minority of people who may never even view the site or use the application.

[Kalon]

In a Utopian world yes, in the practical world no..

totally agree