I'm intrigued by the current trend in ajax applications. Is it acceptable to focus on building the best ajax application possible and disregard browsers that don't support ajax (especially if it's a secured part of the site and not public)?
I'm not referring to corporate intranets where browser usage can be controlled, but rather sites that users pay a monthly fee to access. It's not entirely public, but it's not controlled either.
It seems that the more advanced and impressive you make your ajax application, the more challenging it becomes to support the traditional model. The two approaches diverge so much that you end up essentially developing two separate UIs/controllers for everything in the system. Sometimes, you might even need to create two different views.
I'm the sole developer on this project. Having to double my efforts feels like a waste of time. I believe it's more practical to first build the product I envision, and then possibly add the non-ajax features later on, if necessary.
The unique selling point of the project revolves around the way ajax is incorporated. Personally, supporting the non-ajax features is not a priority for me. Software that doesn't support ajax would just be a duplicate of what's already available. Users would be drawn to this software because it's more user-friendly and enjoyable to use.
If users prefer the non-ajax version, there are plenty of existing products that cater to that. I'm considering the strategic decision to disregard that market and focus on the potential for my product to surpass them in the future.
In this scenario, would it be reasonable to not support browsers with disabled javascript? If I opt for this approach, what considerations should I keep in mind beyond potential issues with older browser compatibility?