h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
You were Web 2.0 before anyone made it up. The interface lays itself perfectly to AJAX, so why not leap into it?
How many links on the site do nothing but reload the current page, replacing one small part? Clicking the 'link' and 'annotate' triggers this kind of action. A little bit of AJAX can reduce
your bandwidth usage and improve an already snappy interface.
ajax
http://www.officede...MD/417931_sk_md.jpg
[po, Jun 10 2006]
ajax
http://easyweb.easy...land74/picAjax1.jpg
[Jinbish, Jun 10 2006]
ajax
http://www.enigmaar...m/images/Img167.gif
[Jinbish, Jun 10 2006]
ag(ed)ax(e)
http://www.essex.ac...es/EA2chopTree.html
Best I could do, sorry. [zen_tom, Jun 10 2006]
http://www.ajax.nl/
[zeno, Jun 11 2006]
(War Rocket) Ajax
http://homepage.ntl...h_gordon-ming-1.jpg
To bring back his boh-dee. [calum, Jun 13 2006]
Gartner: Websites get cool with Ajax or die
http://metimes.com/...060619-041456-4588r
"By this time next year, Websites not developed using the Ajax technique "will simply not be cool enough to use," an Internet analyst said." [jutta, Jun 25 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Doesn't AJAX (as cool as it is) need a smidgen of Javascript to run in one's browser? As snazzy as AJAX is, it's by no means ideal - plus would need a certain amount of work on the behalf of the site owner - by which time, who knows what new technology will be available? Just the nature of the beast I guess. |
|
| |
This isn't happening mostly for reasons of logistics. I would like the outcome - the voting and links annotations should really be asynchronous; and browsers who don't support JavaScript, or users who don't like it, could continue to use the full-round-trip interface. |
|
| |
It would take me a while to get up to speed, and it would take me a while to *stay* up to speed - once I get into bed with JavaScript, every new browser update means that I have to make sure that my general Ajax framework still works. I guess that's where zen_tom was going. |
|
| |
Ah, form over substance, that's what we all need! Not. |
|
| |
Yep, that was my general direction - because, just like people, getting into bed with new technologies can also end up with all sorts of unexpected, complicated and inconvenient consequences. |
|
| |
If there was an XML version of the Bakery, then it would be an easy enough thing for people to do mashups or skins in whatever language platform they preferred, without imposing more programming workload on the poor webmistress. |
|
| |
I don't know if the RSS feed for views is enough for this. |
|
| |
As I understand it, AJAX is not (and cannot be) 508 compliant and will keep those with disabilities out 100%. For those not in the U.S., Section 508 of some federal communications act outlines what steps a site should take to be usable to those with disabilities (screen readers, non-graphical browsers, etc). Just like using all-flash sites, we are slowly shutting down the web to disabled persons altogether. |
|
| |
That may be a trend in practice, but doesn't need to be that way in theory. |
|
| |
The level of AJAX that would be needed to do what I suggest isn't a lot of javascript and wouldn't even require things like browser-specific nuances. Just a simple XMLHttpRequest call to post the data just like the pages already do, no server changes needed. A little bit of very basic DOM manipulation to replace the form element with the new link or comment the user wrote, and voila! |
|
| |
You can do AJAX without browser-specific nuances? And there I go thinking that the very request and event handling is browser specific. Silly me! Someone should really go out and tell the millions of web developers writing code to work around what they hallucinate as Microsoft/Rest-of-the-world differences, or using frameworks to work around those differences, that they can just stop doing that.
Ah, there I spot one now. "Come here. HEAL! HEAL, I say! Throw away your CRUTCHES and WALK!"
Hm, isn't quite working. Suggestions? |
|
| |
There are nuances for more complex work beyond the simple XMLHttpRequest calls, but the core of it is pretty standard and you wouldn't need much beyond that common ground, if at all, to really improve the expirience of this site. |
|
| |
jutta: throw away the browser instead of the crutches? |
|
| |