The question below addresses issues regarding jurisdiction.Please explain it including the legal rule and how that rule applies to the case in order to support a conclusion

Juniper Auto Sports Cars, Inc. (Juniper) is an auto dealership located and incorporated in Florida.In its 32-year history, the overwhelming majority of cars sold by Juniper were to residents of South Florida.Juniper has never owned or leased property in Colorado, and has never advertised directly to residents of Colorado, and has never intentionally focused on selling cars specifically to the residents of Colorado.However, Juniper does maintain a website that is, naturally, accessible to any user in the world. The website was used by Abisai, a Colorado resident, to locate a 2020 BMW M8 automobile.Abisai subsequently called and wrote Juniper to inquire about price and delivery terms.The parties agreed on price, and Abisai purchased the car and arranged to have the car shipped from Florida to his home in Colorado.When the car arrived in Colorado, it was not as Abisai expected.After the parties failed to resolve the dispute, Abisai filed suit in Colorado alleging deceptive trade practices.Juniper requested that the Colorado court dismiss the suit because it lacked personal jurisdiction over him.Abisai argued that Juniper's maintenance of an interactive website that is used by Colorado residents is sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held in favor of Juniper and ruled that there was not enough contact with Colorado or its residents.The court applied theZipposliding scale and concluded that the website did not target Colorado residents and lacked interactive features.The court explained that creating a website, like placing a product into the stream of commerce, may be felt nationwide, but without more it was not an act purposefully directed toward Colorado (the forum state).If it were, personal jurisdiction in Internet-related cases would almost always be found in any forum in the country, contrary to long-settled principles of personal jurisdiction.

The Colorado Supreme Court determined that the defendant's website merely advertised its vehicles and (presumably) included a credit application.There is no evidence that files were exchanged via the website or that any business was actually conducted via the site.As plaintiff explained in his declaration, he "wrote to and phoned" the defendant to get more information and to negotiate the purchase.Nor is there evidence that anything about the website specifically targeted Colorado residents.Thus, defendant's maintenance of the website alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

Please answer the following

1. Would it change the Colorado Supreme Court's analysis if Juniper's website featured methods for purchasing items from the dealership via credit card?
2. How is it possible to "target" residents of a particular state through a website?
3. Look up three websites for merchants in your area.Are there any that potentially target residents of other states?What is the difference in format, language, and interactivity between these websites?

Please help me to understand this better, thank you