Nathan simply irritated me with his "primitive by comparison" statement. 



Irritated you? Well, at least it led to a lively discussion and opened a door for you or anyone else to demo an interface for comparison purposes. While I benefited by a discussion of accessibility it does seem quite unfair for you to suggest that my interface lacked therein. It has many extra features that enhance accessibility. Your initial allegations against the use of JavaScript on the pretense of accessibility turned out to be simply a distraction. JavaScript is needed to improve accessibility. The topic of malicious JavaScript is a different matter that has merit, but is not applicable to a discussion of database maintenance design patterns.

I'm tempted to delineate the features of the interface I demoed which are not fully apparent at first blush which I think would justify my assessment about other design patterns being "primitive by comparison", but I don't want this discussion to be tedious for anyone.

My main point is that database inquiry and maintenance activities within broadly scoped business systems for real users calls for a level of sophistication that is not trivial from a design perspective. So, why are we constantly fielding questions asking for easy solutions for database maintenance, rather than understanding that sophisticated frameworks are in order?

-Nathan


This thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].