<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making AJAX navigation optional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/</link>
	<description>Chris Heilmann - Accessibility, Web Development and Pragmatism - can talk, will travel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:34:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Egg</title>
		<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-3655</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Egg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wait-till-i.com/?p=266#comment-3655</guid>
		<description>Hi,

I was looking at your ajax navigation sample and wanted to point out a few limitations to you. 

1. There is no back/forward button support
2. There is no way to directly navigate/add to favorites to a  page

That&#039;s it, but those are to big issues. I am experiencing the same problems with my site also!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I was looking at your ajax navigation sample and wanted to point out a few limitations to you. </p>
<p>1. There is no back/forward button support<br />
2. There is no way to directly navigate/add to favorites to a  page</p>
<p>That&#8217;s it, but those are to big issues. I am experiencing the same problems with my site also!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kip</title>
		<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-2403</link>
		<dc:creator>Kip</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2006 13:11:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wait-till-i.com/?p=266#comment-2403</guid>
		<description>I think the concept is good -- but would offer it as a &quot;low-bandwidth&quot; aspect.  IOW:  at the entry of the site, the user can choose a &quot;high/broadband&quot; or &quot;low/dial-up&quot; bandwidth.  This menu could be one of several different aspects of the bandwidth-related customization.  The non-ajax version of the menu will load much faster for a dial-up user -- and they&#039;ll appreciate that.  (Yes, some of us still have a wide user base that uses dial-up, unfortunately.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the concept is good &#8212; but would offer it as a &#8220;low-bandwidth&#8221; aspect.  <span class="caps">IOW</span>:  at the entry of the site, the user can choose a &#8220;high/broadband&#8221; or &#8220;low/dial-up&#8221; bandwidth.  This menu could be one of several different aspects of the bandwidth-related customization.  The non-ajax version of the menu will load much faster for a dial-up user &#8212; and they&#8217;ll appreciate that.  (Yes, some of us still have a wide user base that uses dial-up, unfortunately.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Madness</title>
		<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-2246</link>
		<dc:creator>Madness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wait-till-i.com/?p=266#comment-2246</guid>
		<description>hmm, it has an odd behavior in some situations, IE, click on advanced navigation, then products, then cms then products again things start acting in a weird way.

As previously said I don&#039;t really find this to be a necessary improvement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmm, it has an odd behavior in some situations, <span class="caps">IE, </span>click on advanced navigation, then products, then cms then products again things start acting in a weird way.</p>
<p>As previously said I don&#8217;t really find this to be a necessary improvement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dreamer</title>
		<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-2236</link>
		<dc:creator>dreamer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wait-till-i.com/?p=266#comment-2236</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;&quot;&gt;
However, the same concept works with “Advanced search”, doesn’t it?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

This is hardly the same concept. An &quot;advanced search&quot;, while the wording might be similar, is self-explainatory. It offers a means to do a more thorough search, it offers more options. &lt;em&gt;It offers more.&lt;/em&gt;

&quot;Advanced navigation&quot; is not what it claims to be: it is not &quot;advanced&quot; to the user. To him, it simply is another kind of navigation. It looks different, it responds differently, but in the end it does the exact same thing the &quot;simple&quot; navigation does, it does not offer any more options. &lt;em&gt;It doesn&#039;t offer more.&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
It won’t be a problem turning the option around, as in giving the AJAX navigation and offering a “reduce options” link.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The customizing aspect is way too overrated. If your concept is complex, users will try to adopt to it or stop bothering and leave. Hardly a user will really try to customize a common website to his needs, and if so most of the time just to fiddle around without a real goal. In the past ten years, I have seen the customizing concept fail so (i.e. Dr. Cox&#039; &quot;SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!&quot;) often I would only recommend it in web sites which are highly personalised in the first place.

If your concept is too complex for the targetted user: change the concept.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote cite=""><p>
However, the same concept works with &acirc;Advanced search&acirc;, doesn&acirc;t it?
</p></blockquote>
<p>This is hardly the same concept. An &#8220;advanced search&#8221;, while the wording might be similar, is self-explainatory. It offers a means to do a more thorough search, it offers more options. <em>It offers more.</em></p>
<p>&#8220;Advanced navigation&#8221; is not what it claims to be: it is not &#8220;advanced&#8221; to the user. To him, it simply is another kind of navigation. It looks different, it responds differently, but in the end it does the exact same thing the &#8220;simple&#8221; navigation does, it does not offer any more options. <em>It doesn&#8217;t offer more.</em></p>
<blockquote><p>
It won&acirc;t be a problem turning the option around, as in giving the <span class="caps">AJAX </span>navigation and offering a &acirc;reduce options&acirc; link.
</p></blockquote>
<p>The customizing aspect is way too overrated. If your concept is complex, users will try to adopt to it or stop bothering and leave. Hardly a user will really try to customize a common website to his needs, and if so most of the time just to fiddle around without a real goal. In the past ten years, I have seen the customizing concept fail so (i.e. Dr. Cox&#8217; &#8220;SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!&#8221;) often I would only recommend it in web sites which are highly personalised in the first place.</p>
<p>If your concept is too complex for the targetted user: change the concept.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erol</title>
		<link>http://www.wait-till-i.com/2006/04/10/making-ajax-navigation-optional/comment-page-1/#comment-2230</link>
		<dc:creator>Erol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wait-till-i.com/?p=266#comment-2230</guid>
		<description>Just wanted to say HI, and to give my 2 cents about this. I think that the concept is great, but sometimes it takes too much time from the developer to think about those 1% guys who whould actualy use such an option. Sometimes it&#039;s best to think about those 99% who don&#039;t want to care about selection. Nevertheless the concept seems usable...

Erol/HIT</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wanted to say <span class="caps">HI, </span>and to give my 2 cents about this. I think that the concept is great, but sometimes it takes too much time from the developer to think about those 1% guys who whould actualy use such an option. Sometimes it&#8217;s best to think about those 99% who don&#8217;t want to care about selection. Nevertheless the concept seems usable&#8230;</p>
<p>Erol/HIT</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
