Jump to content

Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Ajax (programming)
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PaulHoadley (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 13 December 2005 (More on "Server-Independent and Server-Centric" section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Discussion of Edits
Please take care when editing this article. It has become a hot-spot for user in-fighting. Please discuss your changes here first before making them and be respectful of those making the edits. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Is latency a pro or con?

I'm confused here. In "Pros and cons", it is said that the main advantage is the speed at which an AJAX application runs and responds to user interaction; due to the client-side scripting taking place which reduces the amount of per-interaction network traffic. Later on in "Criticism", "critics focus on the technical issues AJAX raises, beginning with network latency" (with this link to someone's blog that goes on about how AJAX is no good because of latency). Wha...art??? -- Jin 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That post talks about usability problems with Ajax. I have updated the critisicm section. --Sleepyhead 13:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
In terms of latency itself, it's a con -- as in, the fact that things that used to be instant are now dependent on the speed of the network might be confusing to users. (The advantage that's discussed in the article isn't related to latency per se, but rather, to the slowness of a browser needing to render an entire page when updating a small section of the page would do just fine.) The latency issue DID highlight a confusing part of this article, though, namely that the distinction between what is a "con" (in the pro/con sense) and what is a "criticism" is a little muddy. Thus, I combined the two sections into "Pros, cons, and criticism", and then clarified the latency issue a bit. Jason 16:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Even now I think the criticism paragraph on latency is a bit on the negative side. I've been doing some research, and it seems that network latency is just something you need to consider carefully during AJAX development. If make a proper interaction and technical design, web applications will be more responsive. If you make mistakes, usability and responsiveness will suffer. Is it OK if I try a small rewrite of the latency paragraph? Jep 18:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Have at it! (That being said, there's not a lot in the paragraph to lend a ton of credence to the argument, but rather, it exists just to give a nod to the argument.) Jason t [[Special:Contributions/Delfuego|c

Search Engine Accessibility

The entire Search Engine Accessibility section seems to be an ad for Backbase, something I realized after I removed the spammy Backbase link that ended the section. I'm deleting the entire section for now, as the entire rest of the Ajax article makes the point the section is making, and doesn't do so as a pretense for laying the foundation of a "problem" that's solved by the good folks at Backbase. Jason t c 00:58, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jason, I think Search Engine Accessibility is a very relevant topic for AJAX applications. I have added the link to provide more indepth information on the topic (the article is not a plug, but a contribution to a generic AJAX problem). If you know otehr articles about this topic as well, please include them. Let's be open, and cooperative instead of just deleting contributions. If you like you can contact me at info at backbase dot com. August 31, Jouk.

I'm happy to be open and cooperative, but Wikipedia isn't a manual, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, saying that Ajax provides challenges for search engine accessibility is appropriate, but providing detailed information about how to overcome the challenge is better left for a computer manual (perhaps the Wikibooks contribution that's linked at the bottom of the entry). Jason t c 12:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I just read over the addition about search engine accessibility, and it really seems like it's trying to be a manual. It would be just as easy to flesh out the pros/cons section so that the line that talks about bookmarking problems extends this to be a search-engine problem as well (since they're the same problem); it doesn't feel like WP's the place to go into this much detail on proposed solutions, though. Jason t c 13:51, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The "Search Engine / Deeplinking" section makes absolutely no sense in the context of the rest of this article. It is not a general piece of relevant information about Ajax. At best, it's a tip for Ajax developers (which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article); at worst, it's a self-serving advertisement from an unscrupulous company, which surely qualifies as graffiti. This section should most definitely be deleted (though I'm not doing so at this time). --IQpierce, 16:52 (Central Standard Time), November 3, 2005

I agree completely that this section should go. I read this article for the first time today, and it stands out as so obviously inappropriate that I went straight to the discussion page to determine why it's even there. It's been over a month since the two comments above this one were made, with no show of support in the meantime. How about we delete it in 24 hours from now? PaulHoadley 01:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been aproximately 24 hours, and no one has voiced support. I'm deleting it now. PaulHoadley 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

AJAX vs. Ajax

Noting the global change to the former, I think the general concensus from both the archived discussion here and useage elsewhere is that it should be the latter. Ajax, not AJAX.

  • Correct; the archived discussion is here, and the change to Mr. Garrett's original spelling/capitalization of "Ajax" was supported without dissent. I've changed the article back to reflect this. Jason t c 19:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC) a

xForms & Ajax

As xForms, an XML derivative of sorts, and Ajax "connect" it would seem useful to acknowledge that fact on the Ajax page. I am not competent to do that, but others who agree might want to undertake it. Be my guest. frankatca Nov. 18, 2005, 2:40 EST.

Example applications

When I look at the example links in the article, what I'm wanting to see are Ajax apps in action. The links were all mixed together with lots of pay-to-use, required sign-in sites at the top. I've rearranged them according to the following priorities:

  • 1st: Free, no sign-in.
  • 2nd: Free, sign-in required.
  • 3rd: Pay, but no sign-in for live demo.
  • 4th: Pay, sign-in required.

- Gamol

The "www.digg.com" link in the examples section: exactly how is this site showcasing Ajax? At a glance, it doesn't look like it's using any Ajax techniques at all. If it is, we should probably mention what it's doing in the link description. -Gamol

Good idea. Digg's using AJAX in its user moderation system. I'll edit the link description. -Anderiv
To see that in use, you have to be logged in. I moved the link to the "free but sign-up required" section. -Gamol
Seems like sockpuppets to me. No evidence of Ajax. Clearly linkspam. --Sleepyhead 11:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It _is_ using ajax. Personally, I don't care if the digg link stays on this page or not, but please, check the facts before assuming anything. Check the javascript sources of the website if you're still skeptical. Anderiv 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think singling out Digg over the handful of other more-blatantly-spammy links is a bit unfair. But I think Sleepyhead has an important point. The reason for the Free to use and Sign-up required sections was to filter and contain the linkspam. Personally, I'd really like the links to simply show off Ajax techniques discussed in the article without any kind of signin. But this article was flagged as a "hot-spot for user in-fighting" so I've been reluctant to boldly prune the spammy links (and I'm thinking of others—not Digg). -Gamol
  • Thank God for that "cleanup-spam" notice! This was out of control. The Adaptive Path article that popularised the term Ajax was only published in early 2005 and already a Google search for "Ajax" returns 26 million results. The buzz around this really helped pack the example section full of crap. There were some links to nice implementations that aren't there any more but the change gets a big thumbs up from me—a clear improvement. - Gamol 07:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the word Ajax has more meanings than used this article. For example Ajax is a football(soccer)-club in the Netherlands and a household cleaner. So no wonder Ajax brings up a lot of results. --Sleepyhead 07:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I was waiting for a comment like that! Right after I saved the page, it occurred to me that I didn't compare against Google's previous "Ajax" results. A search for "Ajax programming" returns a comparatively modest 27,400 results. I still stand by my "full of crap" comment though. - Gamol 08:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Archived Discussions

The following sections of this page have been archived:

Supported Browsers section

Um...

"Mozilla Firefox (and derived browsers)" "Netscape" asdasdasd Mozilla = Netscape = Mozilla Firefox

They may be burying the original Mozilla browser in the dirt, but the corpse is still warm.

  • Mozilla 1.7.12 (actual browser that you geeks get Firefox from)
  • Netscape 7.x (Netscape labeled Mozilla 1.7.x)
  • Mozilla Firefox 1.x (browser only version of Mozilla)

Learn your browsers people!


== What is this "Rangarajan" browser AJAX supports?

I have never heard of this browser, and it seems Google hasn't either.

Ajax?

These browsers to not support "AJAX", they support some form of XMLHttpRequest, this really needs to be fixed. AJAX is simply a (poor) marketing term for something that has existed for a very long time.

AJAX has become the de-facto term for the technology, as it's far easier to say, type, etc. You're just going to have to learn to deal with that fact. — ceejayoz talk .com File:Australia flag large.png 19:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)...

Not a web directory

I've found that a few tech articles seem to have a rapidly-expanding list of links that provide no further information on the topic of the article. This is one of them. Let's keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Links to external sites should complement the information in the article.

I know this will upset a few people, but I'm going to delete all external links that don't have primary relevance to the article. If someone wants to revert, that's fine, but I'd like to hear an explanation why those links should be included. Mindmatrix 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Aside: I've also nominated List of websites using Ajax for deletion. I realize that people have put effort into organizing those links, but I simply don't think this stuff belongs in WP. At any rate, if you want it kept, just vote on the AfD page. No big deal. Mindmatrix 02:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one that feels the links are pointless. Oh well. I would like to note, however, that the main portion of the article is just over two pages (in my browser), whereas the links take up five full pages. Most of them are useless, and do nothing to explain AJAX. Mindmatrix 20:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I say delete them. Too many WP pages are full of this sort of crap. Alf Boggis [[User_talk:Alf_Boggis|(talk)]] 10:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have two people who want the links deleted, and nobody that has requested to keep them. I will delete most of the links within 24 hours, specifically, those that fail to meet Wikipedia's external link guidelines. Mindmatrix 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the links, since nobody has requested to keep them in the ten days since I made my initial comment. I've kept several links, deleted many of them, and commented out a few. Could someone please parse the commented links, and keep those that are of high relevance to the article. Note that I visited each and every link I deleted to inspect its contents - I didn't blindly delete the list. Mindmatrix 17:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
No offense, but your choices in deletion are rather... bizzare. For example, you left script.aculo.us, which isn't AJAX, but took out Prototype, which is AJAX and which script.aculo.us requires. — ceejayoz talk .com File:Australia flag large.png 18:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops. I had meant to comment out script.aculo.us; as for Prototype, I've had problems loading that site at various times, so I just deleted it. Thanks for checking the other links too. Mindmatrix 23:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Prototype is one of the most widely used libraries, so it should definitely stay regardless of site availability. It's a key component of a number of development frameworks including Ruby on Rails etc. — ceejayoz talk .com File:Australia flag large.png 04:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The basis is Wikipedia:External links. If you ask me, having a list for toolkit sites is already walking along "web directory" lane. If Prototype (or any in that list) is indeed notable, then someone would write an article on it. (Macromedia Flash is worse.)
Hmm, I wasn't watching, and WP has deleted List of websites using Ajax. I was curious how long that spam-prone external link farm will stay. I guess I should watch the fantastic List of websites now. -- Perfecto Canada 05:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Being a bit grumpy today and tired of seeing spam links creep in one after the other, I deleted the whole toolkits section. I don't see ajax toolkits (even the mere existence of them) being mentioned in the article at all. I don't deny their existence, but if they are worthy of a seperate external links section, the topic should be discussed in the article proper. Maybe some of those adding the links can contribute to the article on this matter (if it's important to the topic), and not just add links? Shanes 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia "ajax" search leads to an entry that says "Useless"

searching for "ajax" from the wikipedia front page leads to an entry that just says "Useless". I think just yesterday it lead to a disambiguation page, which was nice: this new entry is odd, seems like a prank (unless ajax really is useless, which doesn't seem to be the case).

Searching for "AJAX" goes to the correct page.

New Criticism: Fragility of Model

I actually think the biggest weakness of Ajax is that the entire developmental model is quite fragile. Consider that:

  • The fundamental technology, HTML, was never intended to be used for pixel-precise layout, and has been "forced" to do this via browser hacks and odd CSS enhancements
Ajax doesn't require pixel-precise layout.
  • Much of the code for Ajax depends on browser detection, and behaves differently
This is not true. You seem to be looking at a few bad examples and assuming that it's caused by Ajax instead of developer ignorance.
  • Many of the browser paradigms break under Ajax (font resizing, printing, bookmarks, forward-backward navigation, images are optional, hiearchical markup, semantic adaption to non-visual devices)
Simply not true. Ajax has nothing to do with font resizing; that's CSS. Ajax has nothing to do with printing, optional images, hierarchical markup, or semantics. It touches on bookmarks and forward/backward, but there are solutions to that, so it's not true to say that Ajax "breaks" them.

I'd like to find a way to include this in the article, because I think it represents an important aspect of the topic. Incidentally, I think similar additions to HTML and JavaScript are also needed. Robbyslaughter 03:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from editing pages on these topics until you have a deeper understanding of them. You seem to be a newbie who is learning many things at once, and assuming that one thing (e.g. fonts specified in px in CSS) is intrinsically linked to another (e.g. Ajax), merely because you learned them at the same time or saw them in the same web app. Most of your criticisms are completely unfounded and only exist because of your assumptions. Including this information in the article would mislead.

Single Page Application

As written, I cannot see the difference between Single Page Application and Ajax (programming). I propose a merger. -- Perfecto Canada 00:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

They are not exactly the same : google suggest is ajax, it is not SPA. SPA needs Ajax. Ajax don't need SPA. Some people says that SPA is FWP : Fat Web Page.

Agree. The concepts are different. Do not merge. --Sleepyhead 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do NOT merge. SPA does NOT need AJAX; that is a COMPLETE and UTTER misunderstanding of the concept. Jemptymethod 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. Enchanter, the {{mergefrom}} tag is designed for articles not their talk pages. It is rude of you to remove it from the article without contacting me, the proposer.
  2. As I said, I cannot see the difference between the two by just reading the two articles. I apologise I have a "complete and utter misunderstanding of the two concepts" — I apologise I'm an idiot and Jemptymethod is so smart — but the two articles are written to be referring to almost the same thing. Please consider this a request to improve the article to distinguish the two.
  3. Please see Rich Internet Applications. Gmail is there, too! I'm further confused.
Thank you. -- Perfecto Canada 03:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I knew I could well be giving offense but I decided I had to be vehement because these two technologies are diametrically opposed: AJAX relies on server interaction, SPA is entirely client side. I understand it can be difficult to fathom all this "technology soup", at least that is the impression I get especially now that you bring up RIA's (Rich Internet Apps). Actually of the 3 acronyms, SPA is probably the best defined, the other two are to a large extent either hype or misnomers. I agree that the SPA article could probably be improved, but I don't see the need to differentiate it from AJAX, if you understand that AJAX relies on a server side request it is apparent that the two technologies are significantly different, and to cast SPA versus AJAX seems to me another step on the slippery slope where EVERYTHING needs to get redefined in terms of AJAX, to the point that plain old server side programming is being called "degradable AJAX". Jemptymethod 07:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You said, if you understand that AJAX relies on a server side request; perhaps you can improve SPA starting with this. If defining SPA in terms of AJAX is a slippery slope, then are you more comfortable defining AJAX in terms of SPA? The need is quite clear to me. We are doing a poor job defining the three things clearly. -- Perfecto Canada 08:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the need. The very first sentence of the SPA article is: "A single page application (SPA) is a web application that runs entirely in the client web browser." The third bullet point at the top of the AJAX article refers to "the XMLHttpRequest object to exchange data asynchronously with the web server." To me these definitions clearly frame the differences. Anyhoo this convo, if it is going to continue, probably needs to be taken to the SPA page; myself though I see no need for further discussion. Anybody else? Jemptymethod 11:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Gollum a Ajax application

Hello, i want to add Gollum to the example applications. Gollum is a free Wikipedia Browser for the fast and eyefriendly browsing throw the free encyclopedia "Wikipedia". 212.114.250.36 17:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's best that you create an good-quality Gollum (browser) article first. But remember, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your site or product. -- Perfecto Canada 19:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's discuss before removing this. I'm open to why it should be removed, but I also think there are valid reasons for keeping it, and refutations of arguments I've seen so far for removing it. While discussion is ongoing I can also make the article more pertinent. Jemptymethod 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of the content being added to the article, but I see no reason to have a link to a an external site that has all of one paragraph to add on the topic. Robbyslaughter 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a poor resource that adds nothing to the article. Anything you think is worthwhile can be very easily ported over. Rufous 22:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering the Ajax Achilles Heel article corresponds directly to a column (restricted to 100-150 words) published a few months back in hotscripts.com's monthly email newsletter, I have not added verbiage. What I have added though is a screenshot of maps.google.com with Javascript disabled. If a picture's worth a thousand words, now the article is more like 1100-1150 ;) Jemptymethod 01:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There was no further discussion here for about a week, and yet the link was removed yet again. I've since restored the link, and welcome discussion as to whether the enhancements to the Ajax Achilles Heel article make this a sufficiently valuable resource. My position ahead of time is that they do indeed, in particular for people who respond to visual input more so than textual. Jemptymethod 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I still say this 'article' is not adding anything that the Wikipedia article doesn't already cover. We have a section on JavaScript being a requirement. Of course it is, XMLHttpRequest is a JavaScript object. 'Exposing' an AJAX application as requiring JavaScript is hardly a revelation. Rufous 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit I see a consensus forming or at least nobody but me seems to be speaking in favor of retaining this link. However I would point out the following point #4 from External_links#What_should_be_linked_to ("On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.") as an argument for keeping it. Jemptymethod 03:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Link being removed more than once a day now but with no counter to the above argument on this talk page. If this link should be removed, it could be argued that so too should be the "Why Ajax Matters Now", because that POV "overwhelm(s) the number dedicated to any other." Wear me down here in the talk page and I may concede, but until then I will continue to revert. Jemptymethod 02:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Replaced link to my own site with one to a Jakob Nielsen article. There goes 70+% of my traffic, but the writing was on the wall ;) Jemptymethod 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a Jakob Nielsen article. It's a poor parody of a frames article that he wrote, with a few terms switched. A lot of the criticisms of frames simply don't apply to Ajax, it's naive to take it as meaningful criticism. I'm removing the link. Feel free to link to *worthwhile* criticisms of Ajax, but blindly linking to anything negative makes it look like you have an axe to grind.

--Bogtha 12:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

"Server-Independent and Server-Centric" section

As far as I can see, this section appeared as the result of an anonymous edit on 8 December 2005. After reading the article several times, this section strikes me as very poorly integrated with the rest of the article. It exhibits at least the following problems:

  • The section title is borderline nonsensical: to what do these two adjectives apply?
  • What are the "couple of frameworks" in the opening sentence? As far as I can see, only one is mentioned.
  • This section introduces yet another "pro and con" list into the article. Pro and con lists are considered harmful.
  • The entries in that list are mostly nonsensical sentence fragments. e.g., "No AJAX and JavaScript prerequisites of programming skills"—in fact, this one isn't even a fragment. It just doesn't make sense at all.

In my opinion, this section adds close to nothing to the article and should be removed entirely. Would the original author care to argue in support of keeping it? If anyone else wants to argue in support, would you care to re-write it? I propose that it is deleted entirely. PaulHoadley 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Samyem has just added another "framework" example. While this certainly addresses the issue of the plurailty of the word "couple", it wasn't really what I had in mind for salvaging this section. The first paragraph remains barely comprehensible. Samyem—are you offering to completely re-write this section, or at least argue for its retention? Any other comments? PaulHoadley 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there any supporters for this section? In the absence of any support, I propose it is deleted entirely tomorrow. PaulHoadley 02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ajax_(programming)/Archive_1&oldid=31137595"