What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, "Time for Miracles" view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
20 Comments
- revmitcz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Ahh.. I was kinda hoping they'd figured out a way to capture or otherwise utilize the back/forward/reload browser states, much like the Flash community found a compelling way to more-or-less make Flash respond to such behavior. I think AJAX is cool and all in a lot of places, but I don't like the idea of running a linear-navigation website off of it for the very reason that the back/forward buttons are rendered useless and that confuses the end-user. Not the digg community, of course, but the "lowest common denominator" average internet user.
Still.. interesting concept. Hope it gets put into use in more places. - tybris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7where's the AJAX part?...or have we simply renamed JavaScript to AJAX... *sigh
- llbbl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I like IBM's articles.
- artnez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's like creating a browser within a browser.
The net is stateless for a reason and should be kept that way for the time being. What's the point of confusing the hell out of your users for the sake of a trick/hack .. to say 'hey, i did it and you did not!' ??
If you want to speed things up, do the following:
- Write a simple template engine in php/ruby/perl/etc
- Make every page/module have two parts: a server side version and a cached html version.
- The serverside version will generate the cached html version.
- The serverside version will only run once when the page is generated and every time it is updated.
- If you make a large template change, the will be completely rebuilt (or cleared). - splintax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5AJAX is great and all.. but I don't really see the point of this. If your AJAX app is so complex that the user feels the need to use the Back button, I think your application is a little too complicated.
AJAX is best left to functions like the digg counter, IMO. - djnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4another ajax tutorial on the front page. cant we just put them all on ajaxtutorials.com instead of frontpaging every little thing?
- lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4tired... of... ajax... crap...
- arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I can't find the page right now, I have it bookmarked on a different machine I won't have access to for another nine hours or so, but there's a neater method than the one the article describes which uses the browser's history, not some tacked on stack.
It works by modifying the # portion of the url in the location field. This can be changed without causing a the page to reload. E.g. You're display photo number five and the url reads
http://www.myphotos.com/monkeys#5
They user clicks the button to go to the next photo, the photo is switched with javascript, maybe you put a fancy transition effect in there too, and the url changes to
http://www.myphotos.com/monkeys#5
The visitor can then navigate back through previous photos using the browser's back button and any individual photo can be bookmarked. Wish I could find the page to post a link. - Peturbed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2without affecting the browsers history this is worse than useless. How unusable is it to have nested back buttons. If your application has the need for a back button it could probabably be better built over several pages.
- PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Found it -- http://www.digg.com/programming/AJAX:_How_to_Handle_Bookmarks_and_Back_Buttons
Or the actual link -- http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/10/26/ajax-handling-bookmarks-and-back-button.html - astrOdz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4thanks! This is very very useful!
- PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ok I just had an idea,
What if when we opened our ajax app, we straight away jump to a new page, which contains the app, then we put some javascript on the previous page, which detects when a user has gone back to that page, then we jump forwards twice, and back again (to activate the forwards button).
Edit: just saw artnez's post below, that might be a better method. - gkoberger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's a really clever way of doing it.. thanks for pointing it out... Of course, it only works on pages that are short enough that you dont have to scroll, otherwise it will jerk the page up to the top every time, which defeats the purpose (in my opinion, anyway)... But thanks for the link...
- crizo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree. Adding another set of back and forward buttons is a very bad usability move. What happens to the nice shiny buttons at the top of the page? Do my extra mouse buttons still work? For some users (my mom, for example), the back button is the first thing they learned when using the internet. It's rediculous to try to reinvent how they use it. Within the current browser paradigm, anyway...
- phpCypher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0very nice ;)
I built something similar a few years back, so it should be interesting to see how it mingles with current ajax - crizo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Right... AJAX is suitable for actions within the same location (not requiring navigation of content). Back buttons are suitable for tracking navigation, but not actions (it's not the same as undo). If done properly, the two should work together in a logical, non WTF kinda way. The problem comes in when people try to direct your navigation with AJAX - which breaks both.
- duncn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why do we have to reinvent the wheel all the time?
OK - the situation is a little different, but there already are back and forward buttons in our browsers. Of course, what would be nice is being able to integrate AJAX page states with the browser back/forward buttons. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1> If your AJAX app is so complex that the user feels the need to use the Back button, I think your application is a little too complicated.
People use the back button all the time, even for the simplest websites. What makes you think that use of the back button means overcomplication? - BitwiseMcgee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Because it most likely means you're trying to create an entire site in AJAX. For example, if you use AJAX to make all of your blog's posts load with ajax so you never leave the root URL, then you're relying on AJAX too much. AJAX is good for small fragments of a site, like form submission etc.
The concept of a "page" on the web is important, and trying to go around it just makes your site less useful, IMHO - o0o0steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm guessing the AJAX part is the photo gallery but this is AJAX related....
easy recipe: wrap with fancy AJAX name... receive traffic to site
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is