Sadly I have to make a website (so to speak website) that can be placed on a CD.
My question is, can I use JavaScript and jQuery?
Some of the people who get the CD might have IE6 on Win XP installed.
Thank you.
Yes. jQuery explicitly supports IE6, and IE6 supports JavaScript (it would have to, otherwise jQuery couldn't support it) although it has some bugs.
You can put a website on to CD, and javascript/jquery should work fine. But beware that you'll only be able to have static resources: that is every request must be for a physical asset that exists on the CD. I.e you wont be able to have pages rendered dynamically in response to a request, and I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to make ajax requests too.
I had experience of making such a thing. It was a catalog of goods. So I grab all data and converted it to JSON. The catalog itself was only one page which show the goods using JS and client-side templating, doing some sorting and search. The biggest problem with using this catalog was that fact that reading much of small files from CD is really slow. So it was necessary to use as much CSS-sprites as possible instead of regular set of good's photos.
Related
I'd sum this up as looking for an offline client solution that is 100% standalone and uses no external files/libraries or other machine resources to tabulate data from a user-chosen TSV file (the result is simply rendered in a plain HTML table - nothing fancy, just data).
I am not a web programmer, but have volunteered to do this project. I have been asked to code this as a browser-based solution because the party deems it the most user-friendly for their needs.
Again, this is not an html file that is served; it is emailed to a client that copies it into a folder of their choosing and run (by selecting a local file to render).
Every time I attempt some solution (e.g., FileReader, etc.), I can only get it to only work in a certain manner with specific browsers (including having to use it differently in the same code depending upon the browser - is this simply my lack of knowledge?).
My question is: Is there one single way to code this for most browsers (including older browsers like IE8)?
If not, I would most appreciate suggestions - both general and specific.
An example would be helpful if possible.
Thank you in advance.
If you're looking for client/browser specific, you won't have access to the file system. That's a security breach that isn't implemented into the browsers. You're going to need to implement some sort of server-side technology to take a crack at the file being handed over, or you will need to strictly specify which browsers are supported (things like FileReader are only IE10 or better).
I've never tried using the INPUT FILE to see if it will load a file before pushing it to the server (in say a FORM POST or a XHR/AJAX push)- but maybe look here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Using_files_from_web_applications
Let's see -- what else. If the file has a specific name, your HTML could reference it in an IFRAME and see if you can't communicate back and forth between the IFRAME and the parent window.
You're really limiting yourself without having a server being able to process it, and the browser range you need. Your best bet might be the File API and restrict the lower limit of browser compatibility?
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/file/dndfiles/
AFAIK, there is no way to do this for all browsers. Especially for IE8. If you need a standalone application, the best way is to use C++/Java/C# or any language that allows to create desctop applications.
Does anyone know how disqus works?
It manages comments on a blog, but the comments are all held on third-party site. Seems like a neat use of cross-site communication.
The general pattern used is JSONP
Its actually implemented in a fairly sophisticated way (at least on the jQuery site) ... they defer the loading of the disqus.js and thread.js files until the user scrolls to the comment section.
The thread.js file contains json content for the comments, which are rendered into the page after its loaded.
You have three options when adding Disqus commenting to a site:
Use one of the many integrated solutions (WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, etc. are supported)
Use the universal JavaScript code
Write your own code to communicate with the Disqus API
The main advantage of the integrated solutions is that they're easy to set up. In the case of WordPress, for example, it's as easy as activating a plug-in.
Having the ability to communicate with the API directly is very useful, and offers two advantages over the other options. First, it gives you as the developer complete control over the markup. Secondly, you're able to process comments server-side, which may be preferable.
Looks like that using easyXDM library, which uses the best available way for current browser to communicate with other site.
Quoting Anton Kovalyov's (former engineer at Disqus) answer to the same question on a different site that was really helpful to me:
Disqus is a third-party JavaScript application that runs in your browser and injects itself on publishers' websites. These publishers need to install a small snippet of JavaScript code that makes the first request to our servers and loads initial JavaScript loader. This loader then creates all necessary iframe elements, gets the data from our servers, renders templates and injects the result into some element on the page.
As you can probably guess there are quite a few different technologies supporting what seems like a simple operation. On the back-end you have to run and scale a gigantic web application that serves millions of requests (mostly read). We use Python, Django, PostgreSQL and Redis (for our realtime service).
On the front-end you have to minimize your payload, make sure your app is super fast and that it doesn't break in extremely hostile environments (you will be surprised how screwed up publisher websites can be). Cross-domain communication—ability to send messages from hosting website to your servers—can be tricky as well.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to explain how everything works in a comment on Quora, or even in an article. So if you're interested in the back-end side of Disqus just learn how to write, run and operate highly-scalable websites and you'll be golden. And if you're interested in the front-end side, Ben Vinegar and myself (both front-end engineers at Disqus) wrote a book on the topic called Third-party JavaScript (http://thirdpartyjs.com/).
I'm planning to read the book he mentioned, I guess it will be quite helpful.
Here's also a link to the official answer to this question on the Disqus site.
short answer? AJAX, you get your own url eg "site.com/?comments=ID" included via javascript... but with real time updates like that you would need a polling server.
I think they keep the content on their site and your site will only send & receive the data to/from disqus. Now I wonder what happens if you decide that you want to bring your commenting in house without losing all existing comments!. How easy would you get to your data I wonder? They claim that the data belongs to you, but they have the control over it, and there is not much explanation on their site about this.
I'm always leaving comment in disqus platform. Sometimes, comment seems to be removed once you refreshed it and sometimes it's not. I think the one that was removed are held for moderation without saying it.
Is Graceful degradation possible for everything? for every javascript and javascript frameworks functionality?
No, it is not possible for everything. There comes a point when you have to decide if you can support a feature with or without javascript, or if it simply can't be done without it (or would take too much time/money to accomplish).
This concept might help you:
For public websites meant to provide information, make sure every essential piece works with/without JS. This includes sales sites, corporate information sites, business micro sites, etc.
If the site is a web application with tools available behind a login, then making JS a requirement makes more sense since you can notify the user of this requirement upon signup/signin. Obviously you should still go as far as you can to make the site accessible for handicapped users.
If you start with a non-javascript webpage, and get the functionality that you are willing to accept, then you can get graceful degradation to work, as you have a lower level that is acceptable, so if you can't get some functionality to work you can just not use javascript for that part.
But, if you absolutely require javascript then you need to decide on a least supported version, and get your app to work that way.
You may find that you will need to be able to replace some functionality that doesn't exist in the browser's version of javascript, so, if you use the string.trim() function but it isn't included, then you need to write it, and use the String.prototype functionality.
If you use unobtrusive javascript then you can test before making any changes to the dom elements to see what needs to be done to get that functionality to work.
If you find a framework that doesn't meet your needs, you will need to replace that framework with your own, rather than having a mix where on some browsers you have one framework and on others you have your own.
It depends what you will accept as functional, if you require a dialog box to pop up on the page and request user input, then no, but if it's ok that the page redirects to an input form then it is.
There are a lot of cool things that can be done with javascript, but with some thought things can usually be functional (but probably not pretty) without.
In my experience, I've yet to find a scenario that can't be solved with graceful degradation. Consider a "to-do list" app of today versus a decade ago. Today, if you would like to order a list of items, you simply drag & drop. A decade ago, you would click a "re-order" button, visit a second page where you would manually modify the IDs for each item for numeric sorting.
I tend to build apps (with a framework behind them, mind you) that already support this structure. Then, with "progressive enhancement" via Javascript, you can simply ease the user's burden in making these changes and still take advantage of the same code in the backend.
So yes, as long as a browser supports cookies for session data, an app can remain entirely functional without Javascript. It will simply be more difficult to use :)
I'm starting to give a little more attention to making my javascript and ajax degrade gracefully. Which is more recommended:
working on incorporating the graceful degradation into your existing code (can be tricky)
or
developing a different sets of pages for the non-js users.
I'm leaning towards the different sets of pages, because I feel it's easier and I get to deliver the best possible results for each user type (js-enabled or js-disabled). Do you agree with me, and if not, why do you disagree?
I'm also worrying about hacking attempts. For example hacker gets to the js-enabled version, then disables his js. Any thoughts on this point? I don't know much about hacking, but can this be a security concern if I go with the separate versions?
Thanks in advance
Though it doesn't work well for existing sites, often it's more useful to use the Progressive Enhancement paradigm: build the site so it works with no special add-ons, then start layering your awesomeness on top of that.
This way you can be sure it works from the ground up and everyone (including those who use screen readers, those who turn off images or stylesheets, and those who don't use javascript) can all access your site.
For an existing site, however, it will depend on what functionality the ajax is delivering. In general you should strive to mirror all the ajax functionality with js disabled. If you have security holes in your js version, than you probably will in your non-js version too. AJAX can't get to anything that can't be accessed via ordinary URL.
Developing two separate sets of pages, one for JS enabled and one for non-JS, is obviously a lot of work, not only initially, but also as your application keeps evolving. If that doesn't bother you too much, I think that's the way to go. I think you are right about same-page graceful degradation being very tricky sometimes. Sometimes this is just because of the layout: With JS enabled, you can simply hide and show elements, where as without JS: where to put everything? Separate sets of pages can help keep page structure cleaner.
About hacking attempts: You can never, never, never rely on client-side JavaScript validation. Everything has to be checked (or re-checked) server-side, and your server-side code may make no assumptions whatsoever on the user input. Therefore, I think the scenario of someone de-activating JS while using the application is irrelevant. Try to keep the expected user input uniform for the non-JS and the JS versions, validate it properly, and you're good.
You'll probably want to check out jQuery Ajaxy. It lets you gracefully upgrade your website into a full featured ajax one without any server side modifications, so everything still works for javascript disabled users and search engines. It also supports hashes so your back and forward buttons still work.
It's been implemented on these two sites (which I know of) http://wbhomes.com.au and http://www.balupton.com
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building a web application with the Zend Framework. I have wanted to include some AJAX type forms and modal boxes, but I also want my application to be as accessible as possible. I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully functional without AJAX.
So as a general guideline...when should I not use AJAX? I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?
If you mean "accessible" in the ADA sense, AJAX is usually a no-no - your site should provide all its content and core functionality using only standard (X)HTML and CSS. Any javascript used should merely extend the core functionality, and your site should be coded to work elegantly in the absence of a javascript-enabled browser.
Examples: if you want a user to click on a thumbnail and get a full-size version of the image as a result, you can make the thumbnail a link. Then, the onclick event will fire a JQuery method that cancels the navigation behavior of the link and pops up a JQuery floating div to show the image on the current page. If the user's browser doesn't support JavaScript, the onclick event will never fire, and the user will be presented the image in a new page. The core functionality is the same with or without scripting.
EDIT: Skeleton example, sans JQuery-specific code.
<html>
<body>
Some URL
</body>
</html>
To cancel the navigation operation, simply make sure that the method invoked by the onclick event returns false at the end.
A neat example of the JQuery image popup I described can be found here.
Use ajax if it adds value for the user.
If the ajax version adds a lot more value than the non-ajax version then it might justify the expense to develop a solution that caters for both clients. Generally i wouldn't recommend doing the extra work (remember.. more code results in more maintenance).
I think one point is missing here: Use Ajax only for content any search engine does not need to know.
98% of users will have AJAX enabled browsers.
A significant percentage of those people won't have it turned on when they first visit your site though (or at all, ever perhaps).
I've seen websites that look like a blank page without javascript on. Don't be one of them. Javascript to fix layout issues is a horrible idea in my opinion. Make sure it loads and looks ok without Javascript. If people can atleast see what they are missing out on, they are likely to switch it on, but if your website looks like it's just broken, then...
I often have noscript block Flash and JavaScript until I make the decision that your site is worthy.
So be sure to tell me what I'm missing if I have JavaScript turned off.
It depends on the complexity of your web application.
If you can, having it functional with javascript disabled is great, because it makes your application usable not only by users on js-disabled browsers but also by robots. The day you decide to write an application to automatically fill your forms, for example, you don't have to write an API from the ground up.
In any case, do not user AJAX for EVERYTHING! I have just inherited a project that basically consists of a single page that is populated by a ton of AJAX calls and I can tell that you just thinking about it gives me physical pain. I guess the original developer didn't like the concept of using the back/forward button in the browser as a mean of navigation.
Unless you are targeting mobile devices or other non-standard web users, you can be fairly sure that the vast majority has Javascript enabled, because most major sites (including SO) rely heavily on it.
I want my application to be as accessible as possible.
You can do things like rendering your modals and forms as a page that can operate standalone.
The AJAX version pulls the template into a modal/container, the standalone version checks if it's an AJAX request and renders the page including the header/footer (this can occur from the same URL if planned well)
The AJAX version intercepts the submit and does AJAX submission then provides an inline thank you, the non-AJAX opens a thank you page. Once again you can likely use the same pages for each of these functions if thought out correctly.
Reusing templates and URL's helps avoid additional maintenance for the AJAX/non-AJAX versions.
I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully
functional without AJAX.
Thinking through the structure of your URLs and templates can go a long way towards this, if you make most of your AJAX requests pull in completely rendered templates (as opposed to just data) then you can usually use the same URL to serve both versions. You just serve only the guts of the modal/form to the AJAX request and the entire page to a regular request.
When should I not use AJAX?
You should not use AJAX if doing so will cause a poor experience for a significant portion of your user base (there are of course techniques that can be used to mitigate this)
You should not use AJAX if the development time associated with implementing it will be too significant to justify the improvements in user experience
You should not use AJAX for content which has significant SEO value without implementing an appropriate fallback that allows it to be indexed (Crawlers are improving constantly but it's still a good idea)
I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or
does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?
I'd say a lot of the time it's unnecessary as the vast majority of users will have AJAX enabled browsers, but there are scenarios where it's critical such as SEO optimization or when a large portion of your user base is likely to use browsers that are less likely to support Javascript as well or where they're likely to have Javascript/AJAX disabled.
A few examples of these scenarios:
A website for a company or government that uses an outdated browser as standard
A website where a large portion of the users may be disabled in a manner that may negatively impact their experience such as a website for vision or motor-skill impaired people may be negatively impacted by updating content via AJAX especially if it occurs rapidly.
A site accessed regularly via a less common device or browser that will cause a negative impact to a large portion of users
So what should I do?
Think about who is going to be using the site, how they're going to access it, and what they're going to access it with. Also try to think about not just the present but also the future.
Design the site in a manner that will cater to the majority of these users.
Think who will gain and who will loose based on my decision to use AJAX and if in doubt have a look at your analytics data to help weigh up the decision and if you lack the data it may be worth updating your tracking and obtaining a sample to aid the decision
Think does my decision to use AJAX cause any contradictions with core requirements for this project
Use AJAX to enhance content where possible as opposed to making it mandatory ie the content should work with or without JS/AJAX
Consider the additional development time involved with the use of AJAX (if any)
My experience is, we should use ajax after it works without it. For a couple of reasons.
First, if something breaks in the ajax, and you don't have it working without it, the site simply doesn't work. For example, a product list with pagination. It should work with the links alone, then use ajax when possible.
Second, for site indexing and accessibility. If it works without ajax, it's better.
And it's easier to break something (even if only for a few moments). A bad piece of code, an uncaught exception, an external library not loaded, a blocking browser extension,...
After everything works without ajax, its quite easier to add ajax. Just have the ajax catch the action, add ajax=1 and when returning the result, return only what you need if ajax=1, otherwise return everything.
In the product list example, I would only return the products and pagination html, and add to the correct div. If ajax stops working, the whole page is loaded and the customer sees the second page as it loads.
Ajax adds a lot of value to UX. If done right, the user gets a great feel when using the site, and better data usage because it doesn't load the whole page everytime.
But the question being "when not to use ajax", I would say, you should always count on it to improve UX but not rely on it for the site to work (as other users also mentioned). And nowadays we need both, great code and great user experience.
My practice is to use two main pages, let's say index.py and ajax.py. First one is responsible for generating full website, and is default target of forms. Other one generates only output specific for adequate ajax query. Logic behind both of them is the same, only the method of generating output is a bit different.
In jquery I simply change action parameter when sending a request. It works both with and without ajax, although long time have I not seen someone with disabled js and ajax.
I like the thought of coding your application without JavaScript / Ajax and then adding it in later to enhance the UI without depriving users of functionality just because they don't have JavaScript enabled. I read about this in Pro ASP.NET MVC but I think I've seen it elsewhere in reading about unobtrusive JavaScript.
You should not make your service bloated with web 2.0 effects like accordion, modal/etc forms, image zoomers etc.
Use modern tech smarter (AJAX is one of them) and your users will be happy. Do not fear AJAX -- this is very good thing to make user expirience smooth. But don't do things because you like it - do them because your user need it ;)
When you want to make a website that looks like a website, not a fugly imitation of a desktop app?
You should not use AJAX or JavaScript in cases where:
your system needs to be accessible
your system needs to be search friendly
However, by using a modern JS framework with some solid "unobtrusive" practices, you can progressively enhance pages so that they remain accessible and search-friendly while offering a slick UI to users.
This totally depends on the type of application or feature you're developing. If it is crucial that the application is accessible despite the absence of Javascript, then it would help to have fallback methods (i.e. alternative forms) to allow your user to use said functionality/feature. For that, it will require you to invest some of your time developing methods for collecting information not just using client-side scripts but also on the server-side.
For miscellaneous features that only serves to enhance user experience, it's mostly not worth it to develop fallback methods.
There's no reason to totally not use AJAX. AJAX helps minimize your traffic after all.
You can if you wish always use AJAX and update the history state using Push State or for more compatibility use the hash with none HTML5 compliant browsers.
with this you can have your server load a page then javascript read the document.hash and resume the state of the application base on the state of the hash.
for example i got to /index.html i click into something for example a client to open the view client you can change the hash to #/view/client/{client_id}/ then if a reload or go back using the browser the hash with change and you can use the onhashchanged event to capture it and match the sites state to the new hash then same if a favorite a certain state
A couple of other scenarios where one may be better off NOT using AJAX:
Letting someone to log into the web application. Use traditional form submit instead.
Searching and returning more than a few 100 rows from the database. Either break the process down or let the server side language handle it.