[Design] Gateway page, was Safari 2

[Matthew Eernisse]

(Moving this thought over to the Design list as well, per Katie's e-mail.)

Mikeal,

We currently don't offer any soft landing for people with no JavaScript 
support. The login page is just broken for those people.

JS is so ubiquitous nowadays that the idea of surfing the Web with no 
script does seem a little quaint, but there are those people out there 
-- ideally we'd like to catch them before they try to hit a page with 
script on it.

A pretty standard way to deal with that is to have a gateway page that 
does all the JS-detection and user-agent sniffing, and have that page do 
a (client-side) redirect to the login page.

That would be the logical place to catch people with unsupported 
browsers as well, but even aside from that, we still should still give 
some thought to the noscript scenario.

Bare minimum would be a noscript message for the login page -- that 
would be trivial to add.


Matthew


Mikeal Rogers wrote:
> I agree with bobby.
> 
> But I would like to stay away from new page forwards. We should use some 
> kind of in page message, so that we don't interrupt or complicate our 
> exiting sign in workflows if people are choosing to ignore our warning.
> 
> -Mikeal
> 
> On Nov 15, 2007, at November 15, 20072:12 PM, Bobby Rullo wrote:
> 
>> I disagree. I think what would really scare people off is just seeing 
>> the "processing..." link and nothing else. Or just a blank page.
>>
>> It's not really possible to just let people get a certain way, and 
>> then when it breaks to warn them. The only safe way is to warn them up 
>> front. Maybe this is what you are saying though.
>>
>> Anyhow, this is not just for Safari 2, this would be for all known 
>> unsupported browsers.
>>
>> bobby
>>
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:
>>
>>> I would let people get as far as loading the UI so they can get a 
>>> peak (assuming it will continue to load nicely). It would be a shame 
>>> to lose people by scaring them too much. We should at least try to 
>>> get a hook in - "Look at how cool this could be. Don't you want to 
>>> upgrade your browser so you can try it out?"
>>>
>>> We can load the UI (logged in or ticket view). Pop-up a dialog. And 
>>> make sure the user understands that if the experience isn't so great, 
>>> it's the browsers fault.
>>>
>>> Is Safari 2 the only browser we're going to do this for? If yes, I 
>>> think we should say 'no longer supported'. It sounds nicer than just 
>>> plain ole 'not supported'. Plus it's the truth!
>>>
>>> ===
>>> Your browser Safari version 2.x is no longer supported.
>>> Try one of these instead: Safari 3 | Firefox
>>>
>>>                                             [Close]
>>> ===
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cosmo-dev mailing list
>>> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
>>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cosmo-dev mailing list
>> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cosmo-dev mailing list
> cosmo-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo-dev
>