[UPHPU] Convert a site to ajax

[David Boucha]

- Original message -
Yes, this is my goal. I do. It only uses post w..

Orson,
jQuery ++

I've found it to be lightweight and very powerful

Dave

On 7/23/07, Orson Jones <orson.uphpu at bookstore.usu.edu> wrote:
> > this can all be avoid with sound design and development. imho, i think
> some of
> > the simplest methods are always overlooked. i think a site that i have
> been
> > impressed with their use of ajax has been netflix.com. they use it for
> > additional features that makes the site that more enjoyable. meaning that
> if you
> > have javascript turned off, then the site functions with no problems.
>
> Yes, this is my goal.
>
> >> 1) switch from post to get
> >> This still makes using back/forward cumbersome.
> >
> > this would be my first choice. the difference between and post and a get
> is just
> > that: post means you are doing crud on something. get means are you
> > retrieving/requesting information. if you are not performing crud then you
> > should us a get call in your forms.
>
> I do. It only uses post when you submit an answer. Otherwise it uses
> get. However if you try more than once, hitting back still brings up the
> post history thing.
>
> > it sounds like you have already made your decision...
>
> Well, yes. If I didn't care about javascript. It does work fine. I just
> got complaints about hitting back in testing. My main question is what
> is a good javascript toolkit to use. However background information
> helps in offering suggestions.
>
> > ...however, if i could perhaps
> > offer a suggestion here. I'm not sure why you need to do asynchronous for
> > posting information all the time. the one thing that i would like to point
> out
> > is that ajax was conceived for retrieving information; thus allowing the
> site to
> > be more responsive and faster in the end-users experience. i wonder if
> this
> > aspect might help you in your decision making.
>
> I'd like to think I'm doing this. I don't think posting a couple numbers
> would hurt the performance. But I am trying to improve the performance
> of the site by only having one item in the browser history while the
> problem is being worked by the user. It would provide interaction
> without clogging up the history, but still leave the history usable.
>
> >> I think I can keep my existing backend and simply add an option to not
> >> display headers/navigation/footers (Just the stuff that is updating.)
> >> Then I would have some javascript that would rewrite the links/forms to
> >> pull/update the content ajax style.
> >
> > this is kinda what I am thinking. improve the user experience via
> > ajax...complementing the stuff that is standard design.
>
> Do you answer the email as you read it? It sounded like you hadn't read
> this part yet earlier in your reply.
>
> > i would probably suggest easing into the javascript realm and add things
> where
> > you see fit. <general> i'm not sure why there is a big push in the
> development
> > world to make things so overly complicated.</general>
>
> Well, that's where I am at. I had considered the main coding to be
> basically finished. I am only adding this because I think it will make
> things simpler for the end user.
>
> Talk about overly complicated. The previous incarnation of this site was
> done in Macromedia Director compiled into an executable windows app.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the input. I think we generally agree that ajax
> should only be used where it is optional and helps improve the
> experience. I believe this qualifies, and I wonder what libraries, if
> any, would be good to use to help achieve this.
>
> Thanks,
> Orson
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> UPHPU mailing list
> UPHPU at uphpu.org
> http://uphpu.org/mailman/listinfo/uphpu
> IRC: #uphpu on irc.freenode.net
>