On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Richard Quadling <rquadl...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> 2009/3/31 Philip Olson <phi...@roshambo.org>: > > > >> Even though I don't actively contribute I still hope I can put my 2 > cents > >> into here: > > > > Of course, and by posting you are being active :) > > > I actually feel welcomed here. It's a strange feeling I have never felt in a community before... o_O (lets just say other open source communities I have participated in would yell at you if you didn't look up something in the API...). > > >> As far as using a "fancy" looking comment system, I would vote for it. > >> Everything is going "web 2.0" with the "ooohhh" and "ahhh"s (gmail is a > >> prime example, there are tons of libraries and sample code for > Javascript > >> effects). Almost every site I visit uses some sort of Javascript or AJAX > in > >> background (even vBulletin has gone AJAX to some extent). > > > > Yeah, people almost expect such features these days. > > > >> I believe that the "fancy" effects will not hinder a system, but > actually > >> make it easier and more useful for the general person (if its done > right!). > >> To defend the use of Javascript (and other Javascript-related effects); > >> you can always have 2 versions of your site - one for people who have a > >> Javascript compatiable browser and the rest who don't. I am 99% sure you > can > >> detect in some way if the browser does support Javascript or not and > serve a > >> page appropriately. If anything else I am sure you could analyze the > >> user-agent string and determine if its a Javascript capable browser or > not. > >> But then again this who idea would requre you to keep 2 versions of the > >> same site. > > > > You don't need 2 versions. Even with the most complex of sites, it > should be developed without JS initially. You then use unobtrusive > JavaScript inclusion to modify the page as appropriate. This technique > allows the widest range of clients with the least amount of effort. It > is pretty much a given that the user-agent string is useless for > anything other than truly rudimentary browser analysis. The > browscap.ini file from Gary Keith > (http://browsers.garykeith.com/stream.asp?PHP_BrowsCapINI) is fine and > dandy but is updated pretty much every week. New user-agent strings > are constantly being created. > > And, having said that, the agent string doesn't actually tell you if > JS is supported or enabled. You can if you wanted to be cheap and make some assumptions. I agree that it doesn't tell you, but you can assume that certain versions of Firefox, IE, Chrome, Opera (and god only knows what other browsers) do support Javascript. And if by mistake we disable the js effects - using this system of "guessing" we can still have a button to "enable" the effects (or take that another step and make it a totally opt-in thing). I disagree that you wont need 2 different pages, simply because in order to make a system like what is being described work, you almost need 2 completely different versions of the site. For example - gmail has a AJAX version and a simple "HTML" version. Now, I don't know what everyone here is imagining, but I believe that in order for this to be useful it needs to be a lot of "effects" not just some AJAX non-refresh submit-a-comment stuff. OR http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_noscript.asp As far as I can tell from the HTML specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ Every browser should support the noscript tag ( http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.1 ) <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/scripts.html#h-18.3.1>, and if we want to go into sementicats and want the site to be compatiable with browsers that don't support the noscript tag...I think at that point you put up a friendly message saying "Stop viewing our site with telnet!" > > That can only be done on the client. So, "they" say don't bother. > Assume it isn't. That way you site works with no special effects, > AJAX, etc. Add JS to the mix and its a few form actions overridden, > some observers and voila, Web 2.0 in all its glory. > > > If something is useful, then it's worth doing. Although more effort would > be > > put into the new system, a fallback to a more basic version is required > for > > people who simply do not like the new or can't handle it. The logistics > of > > presenting data between the two systems (as users add data through each) > is > > one problem, however minor it may seem. > > > > Oh, and then there is the small [large] task of actually creating and > > implementing it... Volunteers? :) But first we need to determine what we > > want and need, whereas this discussion has essentially focused on (A) If > we > > like JS, (B) Not everything handles JS, and (C) The Django book example > has > > problems. > > > > Assuming we will implement JavaScript, what do people think about the > > original ideas? > > > > I use Prototype/Scriptaculous (both served by Google API, so the more > sites that use the Google API cache the better for all). > > When using AJAX I supply a JS callback (using the JSONP concept) to > let server side know the style of call being made. Essentially this > means 1 set of HTML/CSS (with or without JS) and 1 set of server side > scripts which are told to generate HTML or JSONP output. All the > server side logic should be identical and it is just the output that > is tuned. I played around with the Google API and I was not impressed at all to be honest. To me it just seemed too convoluted. I guess I just don't have the patience to learn something completely new. But hey to each his own. Honestly, I think we should just go back to text only webpages, but again thats just me. > > > > Regards, > > Philip > > > > > > > > -- > ----- > Richard Quadling > Zend Certified Engineer : http://zend.com/zce.php?c=ZEND002498&r=213474731 > "Standing on the shoulders of some very clever giants!" I have some experience with AJAX/JS but I am no Javascript Jedi Master (lame reference I know, but cut me some slack I just watched all episodes of Star Wars less than a month ago :) ). I would be somewhat interested in this, but I am sure someone else on the list would be more qualified than I. It's late, probably made a lot of typos, but hey it's my two cents. P.S. What is the official rule for posting? ie is it ok to top post or should I bottom post?
