What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The Best Way To Get A Woman To Pick YOU Up view!
doubleyourdating.com - Here’s how to get any woman to start a conversation with you. Can you say "Bye bye rejection..."???
29 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Its more than just another AJAX app, its actually rather useful page design tool. Helps you run through some good combos for your next css project easily.
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This is really more javascript than it is AJAX.
AJAX implies server interaction. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3cool i made something totally hideous in under 3 seconds... much quicker normal
- cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thanks, jason. My bad. I read someone comment earlier to look at the source (given similar accusations), but I couldn't immediately see why the tool would have anything to do with Ajax. Visiting his blog, helped explain what the site link didn't:
Share Wonders : "I’ve written some AJAX code that will now save, display, and link to colors on the Color Tool I’ve been working on."
http://www.sharewonders.com/2006/04/03/ajax-saves-are-working/#respond
I'm still seeing this implemented with cookies and DHTML with no discernible difference (similar to the Yahoo color picker widget), and perhaps even better performance on Firefox. I'll get dinged for this, but this still bothers me on principle. I think I'm confusing the comments on sites like Slashdot and TechDirt with the comments on Digg. I'm expecting meat in the comments and I'm getting cotton candy that I have to do additional research to make heads or tales from. The trend of the Ajax "me toos" is still real though. Giving me a hair-trigger I'll need to watch closer. Ug. :o( - _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This actually is a helpful tool, it's a lot better then the other ones i've used.
- dave_colorado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2neat. i like this, too: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/slider/examples/slider.html
i can't tell where the ajax is being used, although it brings up a point about where ajax is appropriate. it seems to me like this site could have been created without using any ajax.
just thinking outloud...ajax should be used:
1. when it makes coding easier - versus lots and lots of javascript
2. when there is too much data to load if you are doing some sort of querying.
when you shouldn't use ajax:
1. small - mid size static data sets. you don't need ajax to sort it, there are better methods in my opinion.
2. when the same result can be achieved with relatively simple javascript.
anyone else have thought on that? - rydawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I thought one of the reasons AJAX came along was to decrease server load. When you make a request, you get your reply in the form of a relatively small XML file rather than a whole new html/ASP/JSP/whatever page. The Javascript then handles that file and changes the page on the client side. Very little traffic on the server is involved. I may be wrong, but that was my understanding.
Having said that, I would think that small, static data sets would be a time when you would want to use AJAX. That way you don't have to go to the trouble of setting up a DBMS (assuming you don't have one) and creating a database. Instead, you just store all the data in an xml file on the server. If you already have a DBMS such as SQL Server, then adding another set of database tables, populating the tables and executing queries on the tables would merely increase the load on the DBMS. Also, if you used a database to store the information, then you've got to write some kind of script that executes on the server side to actually request the data and build a response for the client. This increases the load on the server as well. The poor server, why are we doing this to it? Clients typically have quite powerful machines (compared to 10 years ago), so why not offload some of the computation onto them?
So, why not just create an XML file, store all the necessary info in it, and use AJAX to retrieve the data? It splits the computation load a little better between client and server. It seems to make sense to me. But then again, I'm tired, and my logic may be blurred.
I totally disagree with the idea of 'hard-coding' the small data set using javascript only. - cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a little depressing to keep hearing people willfully refer to great DHTML projects as "Ajax" when it doesn't need to be Ajax. Even people who should know better call things Ajax, when they shouldn't be called Ajax.
"anyone else have thought on that?" - dave_colorado
Yes, no one should use your explanation to "define" Ajax or even "identify" an Ajax tool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX
Ajax can be identified by its ability to make web pages feel more responsive by exchanging small amounts of data with the server behind the scenes, so that the entire Web page does not have to be reloaded each time the user requests a change based on information that was not available when the page first loaded. This is usually done by means of the XMLHttpRequest object or an iFrame as a communications medium (although I'd contend you could also dynamically change image "src" tags too, if all your needed was a visual response to the query you made).
There are a number of situations where people can say, "Wow, nice use of Ajax!" they can do this because it's hard to think of any other way this could have been done. The reason why this trend is bumming me out, is that there's no way to stop it. This is a GOOD story to Digg... but its highly inaccurate, and spreads misinformation for all those newbies that only visit the site, and think "Hey, so this is Ajax!"
I even read someone in a story say that they knew their story item didn't involve Ajax, but said it did anyway, just to get more attention. It would be really good if Digg could somehow correct this type of issue, so that irresposible people aren't spreading bad headlines. For instance, maybe people could submit alternate "blurbs and titles" for the link, and those "blurbs and titles" could be voted on subsequently, so that over time, the story headline might be renamed appropriately.
I just hate coming to Digg and seeing the word "Ajax" and thinking, "Yet another person trying to get in a buzzword." It's sucking the class right out of these headlines. - bede, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Very nice, very useful. I can see myself using this a lot.
++digg - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like Well Styled's color scheme generator better. Try it out: you'll see why.
http://www.wellstyled.com/tools/colorscheme2/index-en.html - btipling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1All the information you see, such as color scheme lists, is brought about with AJAX requests. Colors are saved with AJAX requests as well.
- somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just because it's not strictly an AJAX application, doesn't mean nobody needs it.
- daltonlp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's pretty sweet. There's room for lots of color tools in the universe. Not every creation has to be some world-changing web service. It's a nice example of script.aculo.us drag&drop effects.
That said, *this* is an AJAX-powered color tool:
http://www.colr.org :) - ttntyler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Awesome web design tool
- mikeyaj86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Totally agree, great web design tool !
- disillusioned, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.colorblender.com/ uses such a better algorithm to generate actual color schemes.
Note to the above: A single color and four varied shades is not a "scheme." Well. It is. But it's ugly. - rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't really call that AJAX-powered, though.
In fact, I don't see how that's at all better than just saving it in a cookie. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ColorMod anyone?
- bruceyeah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3What's up with digg authors... are you all obsessed with sticking the word "AJAX" into the description for any online tool?
- quade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm working on a Web2.0 app to translate 1337 modern terms into "real" words. Includes such redefinitions as:
web2.0 -> web
AJAX -> Javascript
CSS -> HTML
rounded corners -> bloated markup
drop shadows -> pain in a web developer's ass
Web2.0 app -> web page - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1AJAX doesn't really do much. Javascript is where all the work is. I didn't see a single AJAX request being made when I ran it. I guess it only really does the AJAX request when "saving to a file". That could be done quite easily (and better probably) with javascript.
Nice idea, but ditch the AJAX, it's a waste. - nchaim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree. Ajax is inappropriate for this application. It also makes it slow and uses unnecessary resources on the server.
- jasonmcaffee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"This is a GOOD story to Digg... but its highly inaccurate, and spreads misinformation for all those newbies that only visit the site, and think "Hey, so this is Ajax!""
Actually, if you look at the page source code, it uses ajax.
With that in mind, your post is very ironic. so is your screen name - jasonmcaffee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Your screen name is ironic as well.
- jdunck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Uh? It is?
This works fine for me:
http://www.colourmod.com/plugnplay/
Click the demo link at right of that page.... - jmcmunn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0just what no one ***** needs, another useless "AJAX" tool. C'mon this fad is worse than the blinking/scrolling text and animated "under construction" gifs of the late 90's.
- danp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Worst site ever.
1) Doesn't work in firefox.
2) Needlessly uses AJAX.
3) www.colorblender.com is a bajillion times better.
Createor of website and submitter of article should save the world some trouble and commit suicide. - lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1yeah, junk... its called javascript, not AJAX btw. All this AJAXness is getting really lame. Its nothing I wasn't doing 4 years ago.
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Another one? For God's sake.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is