The 4 States of Ajax Adoption

So the 4 states of Ajax adoption are as follows ...

1. Denial

Usually accompanied with an explanation like "Java Applets are better", or "Javascript makes your website inaccessible to blind people". (Generally I don't buy either argument although I can see a diminishing case for WebStart).

2. Progressive Enhancement

Means taking an existing JavaScript free website and adding some tweaks. It's a conservative approach that won't worry or annoy anyone, but it won't turn any heads either. The BBC, Wikipedia and EBay all use this approach because it's a safe thing to do with a big website.

3. Second Site

The problem with progressive enhancement is that it treats the minority noscript case first. The second site approach provides the best it can for the majority and for the minority too. Google, Yahoo and Amazon create far more advanced systems with this approach. It's likely to cost a bit more, but you're probably going to get a much better site out of it.

4. Accessible JavaScript

The full on approach tries to create accessible sites, but only when JavaScript is turned on. Microsoft's live.com, YouTube and some Google sites do this, and there are some UIs for which there is little choice. Anyone fancy creating office type functionallity without JavaScript?

You can work up the tree, starting out small and getting bigger, and the good news from a DWR point of view is that it can help you each step of the way. DWR is good for small tweaks and a more full on style.

What's your prefered approach?