Admin interface - browser requirement

Christian Reis kiko at
Sat Sep 21 14:32:44 UTC 2002

On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 06:57:05AM -0700, Myk Melez wrote:
> > Is it reasonable to trade off, on the admin interface _only_, the 
> > ability to support lots of old browsers against the ability to have a 
> > more usable UI?
> It's certainly much more reasonable than confining the vast majority of 
> our administrators to the clunky UI supported by browsers only a small 
> minority of our administrators use.

I thought a bit about this, and my proposal for UI is a bad one. I
withdraw it and put a paper bag on my head. The main problem with it is
the non-scrolling of the HTML table which makes the buttons change
position, and that would suck.

However, I still don't think we should abandon lynx and other

> Note that you can support both, however, by making the list reordering 
> buttons submit to the server on non-JavaScript browsers and reordering 
> server-side.  It's clunky, but it does provide the necessary 
> functionality.  On the other hand, we could just make 'em use SQL.

Yeah, we could make it server-side, as a fallback. Sounds good.

Hacking SQL is quite an evil alternative; I think a compat interface
that allowed editing sortkeys directly isn't too evil an idea. It does
fork the UI on the functionality, though.

Take care,
Christian Reis, Senior Engineer, Async Open Source, Brazil. | [+55 16] 261 2331 | NMFL

More information about the developers mailing list