As I still haven’t installed the Silverlight plugin myself I think that might just indicate some of us are reluctant, unlikely or even hostile to having it imposed on us as a barrier. But if that fits their business case, and they are aware of legal / moral / ROI issues then its a valid choice on their part, I guess. But you already know all of that, I’m ranting before breakfast again…

The key is to make web design and development about the business not the technologies. Too many projects get hijacked by forces like ‘its got to be Ajax’ or lose sight of the ultimate mission for the site. Ultimately the site, in this case, would be about sales and experience, but mainly about sales. How do we sell our stuff? How do we ‘make money, and make more money’?

Here’s another question. If someone like me doesn’t have Silverlight then I’ll more likely (unless I’m a fanatic customer already) bail out and buy a competitors product. Now that doesn’t work for the business case at all. There aren’t many times in business that you’ll prefer your competitor make a sale.

I definately think enhanced experiences are great. Just in providing them we need to look at more that the flash and wow and pop solution. Like you pointed out, its a contextual set of decisions – 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 are no longer reliable measures. Screens are all shapes and sizes now, and its getting more so. I’m not saying every solution needs to be all inclusively perfect, just that in using Silverlight, for example, there must be an appreciation that the technology decision ultimately affects sales.

‘We have a fantastic nightclub, Mr Clark, but unfortunately you can’t come in with your retro footwear’. Damn and I was told they had an awesome bar, lots of hot ladies and a fog machine on the snooker table! = I go to another bar and they don’t make $100.

Good point. Same holds for writing in English, or for creating HTML which assumes a certain viewing screen area, or for assuming an expansive subset of JS/DOM support… true?

If so, then it seems we need to first clearly define the audience, and the message/experience we want to reach them with, and only *then* start evaluating technologies.

Choosing “goodWeb/badWeb” teams ahead of time would make the decision process much simpler (!), but seems to risk a worse match between desired audience and final experience.

(I appreciate your essay, btw… been re-reading it a few times the past few days, along with the other contributors, trying to distill my own thoughts on the subject. Thanks for writing it!)

jd/adobe

The point I was trying to make in the article was that any time we make the decision to create an “enhanced” experience, whether its with silverlight or flash or whatever, then we are making a decision that excludes some part of the audience. For example, those without the plugin or who don’t want to install it or have no time and rush to the store to buy something but “damn now I have to do this plugin thing!”… Or there might be security restrictions on running something or installing something (like plugins) on their work computer.

Which is fine as long as there’s a fallback plan. What if someone can’t install the plugin? What if they are using a mobile device? What if they are using an abomination of a browser not in the big six?

I guess I was saying all that is really a business decision that comes down to ROI in the end and whether or not it meets legal, moral and commercial obligations of all the stakeholders (including the people who want to use the site). No, not everyone can get an enhanced experience, or wants it, but using graceful degradation and progressive enhancement as guiding measures can help.

I’m getting off track though. In short, silos are alright but one has to accept that silos do require entry (plugin, learning curve, whatever – maybe someone just says “now I have to find out what Silverlight is before I install the plugin!”).

So I’d say there will always be an open web of HTML, with several well trodden silos like your chosen technology.

I’m always concerned though when someone says 99% of our traffic. That being analagous to my broken drawbridge at the castle (not real drawbridge), and 2 of the 3 people who make it over that bridge can get inside my castle. If I’m only counting the three in my statistic then 66% of my visitors can get inside my castle. Great. But what about the 88888 gazillion who can’t get across the drawbridge?

I’ll have to check out your silverlight page though, later in the day. I’m a bit late and installing a plugin isn’t a trivial thing for me, the user. How much easier if I could just pop over and buy something?

Thanks Will, sorry for the long comment reply. The 7.35 AM Sunday morning after effects of Shiraz.

This means that the app now works in IE6/IE7, Safari 2/3, FF 2/3, Opera, Camino on both Mac and Windows. And possibly more, but this accounts for 99.9% of our traffic.