Talk:Ajax (programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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.

1 Is latency a pro or con?
2 Search Engine Accessibility
3 AJAX vs. Ajax
4 Examples of Ajax applications
5 Archived Discussions
6 Supported Browsers section

[edit]

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 blog 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

[edit]

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)

[edit]

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)

[edit]

Examples of Ajax 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

I have created an additional article called List of websites using Ajax. I have moved all the examples in this article there. The list was getting too long and attracted linkspam. --Sleepyhead 08:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Archived Discussions

The following sections of this page have been archived:

AJAX or Ajax? (page move discussion) Jason 14:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Proposal to unlock page (unlock vprotection discussion) - Sleepnomore 16:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Link to specific blog post - not entire blog (discussion on a particular link) - Sleepnomore 16:24, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Criticism (discussion of Criticism Section) - Sleepnomore 20:29, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Archive Linking to external images without sourcing them (discussion about linking to Garrett's images) - Sleepnomore 20:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Links (discussion about links) - Sleepnomore 20:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Link Proposal (discussion about links) - Sleepnomore 17:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Overload of External Links (discussion about links) - Sleepnomore 17:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Archive? (request to archive page) - Sleepnomore 17:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Concrete Example (Discussion of Example) - Sleepnomore 17:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of Text from Criticism (Requests to remove some text from criticism) - Sleepnomore 17:54, August 20, 2005 (UTC)