Develop Reference

Looking for an alternative to $(window).load that is slower than $(document).ready

I am trying to hide my preloader with JavaScript once the DOM and at least the top content has been loaded. The problem is that my page has several iframes which can slow the process down a lot.
My understanding is that if I use jQuery's $(document).ready to hide the preloader, it will be hidden too soon. On the other hand, if I use $(window).load, the waiting time may be too long. So, is there a middle-way solution, - kind of like window.load but without waiting for iframes?
EDIT:
My page has stuff like Facebook Like button Google Translate and a few other scripts that work via iframes. These are not critical elements, and I would not like to wait for them to load fully.
On the other hand, CSS files like Bootstrap, jQuery, etc. are curcially important for the presentation, and therefore to show the page (hide preloader) w/o having these loaded first would be premature.
Thanks.

You could use $(document).ready to determine if a particular element is loaded before hiding your loader.
Or if you have partial views, to have a $(document).ready function in one of those pages js do the loader hide job.
Since you did not provide more info, these are closer to guesses than real solutions.

I think you're looking for document.onload, which will fire when the DOM tree is ready. I believe that it fires before iframes, which all get their own onload callback/event handler.

You can also try placing the script tag at the end of your html file without begin inside an onload or ready function. This will cause it to load the html content, then fire the Javascript.
EDIT
A thought just occurred to me, which may or may not be useful. You probably have an idea about when you want your script to execute. In whatever browser you are using, check the network tab of the development console. There may be some other element's onload function you want to wrap your code in. For example, if you have a background image you want to make sure loads before your code executes, you may want to use it's onload.
As Petre said, lack of info in the question makes answering difficult.

Javascript 1-2 second delay on page load, weird styling

I'm using Skrollr to animate & create parralax effects when scrolling the page, but there's a short lag which I guess is the Skrollr javascript/jQuery initialising.
Any ideas on how to avoid having the mess at the beginning?
The WP website in question is this one : http://hustynminepark.com
Thank You!

Unless I'm mistaken, the layout of your page entirely depends on the activation of the plugin. You can solve this problem by finetuning the CSS so that the initial page corresponds exactly to what you see after activation of the plugin.
Also, don't forget to minify (concatenate / uglify) your javascript files before loading them into the browser; this will speed up the loading of the page and the activation of the plugin.
Btw, the site looks pretty cool.

If I am correct you have a FOUC, you can use jQuery to detect when your DOM in ready then call init.
First of all you want to include the skrollr.min.js file at the bottom of your document (right before the closing ) and then call skrollr.init(). Or you can place it inside the if you want to, but make sure to call init() once the document has been loaded (e.g. jQuery's ready event or even window.onload).

The difference between async loading js files and loading in footer [duplicate]

Where is the best place to put Jquery code (or separate Jquery file)? Will pages load faster if I put it in the footer?

Put Scripts at the Bottom
The problem caused by scripts is that
they block parallel downloads. The
HTTP/1.1 specification suggests that
browsers download no more than two
components in parallel per hostname.
If you serve your images from multiple
hostnames, you can get more than two
downloads to occur in parallel. While
a script is downloading, however, the
browser won't start any other
downloads, even on different
hostnames. In some situations it's not
easy to move scripts to the bottom.
If, for example, the script uses
document.write to insert part of the
page's content, it can't be moved
lower in the page. There might also be
scoping issues. In many cases, there
are ways to workaround these
situations.
An alternative suggestion that often
comes up is to use deferred scripts.
The DEFER attribute indicates that the
script does not contain
document.write, and is a clue to
browsers that they can continue
rendering. Unfortunately, Firefox
doesn't support the DEFER attribute.
In Internet Explorer, the script may
be deferred, but not as much as
desired. If a script can be deferred,
it can also be moved to the bottom of
the page. That will make your web
pages load faster.
EDIT: Firefox does support the DEFER attribute since version 3.6.
Sources:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_script_defer.asp or better:
http://caniuse.com/#feat=script-defer

All scripts should be loaded last
In just about every case, it's best to place all your script references at the end of the page, just before </body>.
If you are unable to do so due to templating issues and whatnot, decorate your script tags with the defer attribute so that the browser knows to download your scripts after the HTML has been downloaded:
<script src="my.js" type="text/javascript" defer="defer"></script>
Edge cases
There are some edge cases, however, where you may experience page flickering or other artifacts during page load which can usually be solved by simply placing your jQuery script references in the <head> tag without the defer attribute. These cases include jQuery UI and other addons such as jCarousel or Treeview which modify the DOM as part of their functionality.
Further caveats
There are some libraries that must be loaded before the DOM or CSS, such as polyfills. Modernizr is one such library that must be placed in the head tag.

Only load jQuery itself in the head, via CDN of course.
Why? In some scenarios you might include a partial template (e.g. ajax login form snippet) with embedded jQuery dependent code; if jQuery is loaded at page bottom, you get a "$ is not defined" error, nice.
There are ways to workaround this of course (such as not embedding any JS and appending to a load-at-bottom js bundle), but why lose the freedom of lazily loaded js, of being able to place jQuery dependent code anywhere you please? Javascript engine doesn't care where the code lives in the DOM so long as dependencies (like jQuery being loaded) are satisfied.
For your common/shared js files, yes, place them before </body>, but for the exceptions, where it really just makes sense application maintenance-wise to stick a jQuery dependent snippet or file reference right there at that point in the html, do so.
There is no performance hit loading jquery in the head; what browser on the planet does not already have jQuery CDN file in cache?
Much ado about nothing, stick jQuery in the head and let your js freedom reign.

Nimbuz provides a very good explanation of the issue involved, but I think the final answer depends on your page: what's more important for the user to have sooner - scripts or images?
There are some pages that don't make sense without the images, but only have minor, non-essential scripting. In that case it makes sense to put scripts at the bottom, so the user can see the images sooner and start making sense of the page. Other pages rely on scripting to work. In that case it's better to have a working page without images than a non-working page with images, so it makes sense to put scripts at the top.
Another thing to consider is that scripts are typically smaller than images. Of course, this is a generalisation and you have to see whether it applies to your page. If it does then that, to me, is an argument for putting them first as a rule of thumb (ie. unless there's a good reason to do otherwise), because they won't delay images as much as images would delay the scripts. Finally, it's just much easier to have script at the top, because you don't have to worry about whether they're loaded yet when you need to use them.
In summary, I tend to put scripts at the top by default and only consider whether it's worthwhile moving them to the bottom after the page is complete. It's an optimisation - and I don't want to do it prematurely.

Most jquery code executes on document ready, which doesn't happen until the end of the page anyway. Furthermore, page rendering can be delayed by javascript parsing/execution, so it's best practice to put all javascript at the bottom of the page.

Standard practice is to put all of your scripts at the bottom of the page, but I use ASP.NET MVC with a number of jQuery plugins, and I find that it all works better if I put my jQuery scripts in the <head> section of the master page.
In my case, there are artifacts that occur when the page is loaded, if the scripts are at the bottom of the page. I'm using the jQuery TreeView plugin, and if the scripts are not loaded at the beginning, the tree will render without the necessary CSS classes imposed on it by the plugin. So you get this funny-looking mess when the page first loads, followed by the proper rendering of the TreeView. Very bad looking. Putting the jQuery plugins in the <head> section of the master page eliminates this problem.

Although almost all web sites still place Jquery and other javascript on header :D , even check stackoverflow.com .
I also suggest you to put on before end tag of body. You can check loading time after placing on either places. Script tag will pause your webpage to load further.
and after placing javascript on footer, you may get unusual looks of your webpage until it loads javascript, so place css on your header section.

For me jQuery is a little bit special. Maybe an exception to the norm. There are so many other scripts that rely on it, so its quite important that it loads early so the other scripts that come later will work as intended. As someone else pointed out even this page loads jQuery in the head section.

Just before </body> is the best place according to Yahoo Developer Network's Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site this link, it makes sense.
The best thing to do is to test by yourself.

What to use in place of $(document).ready();?

So I'm using jquery along with some plugins I wrote.
I do all the initialization in a $(document).ready(function(){}) block however this is executed when the whole DOM has been loaded and is ready to be used.
However that would take long eg. when there is a server load. Or maybe the user clicks a button that has been loaded while the rest of the page hasn't loaded yet (and thus document.ready() hasn't been executed yet) in which case it would do nothing.
So, what if I want a code to be executed right after the related part of the page has been loaded instead of waiting for the WHOLE page to be loaded?
I know placing inline code right after the html that this js operates on would do the trick but what if that code uses a library like jQuery that hasn't been loaded yet?

I know placing inline code right after the html that this js operates on would do the trick but what if that code uses a library like jQuery that hasn't been loaded yet?
That would be the only way. The HTML is parsed from top to bottom. So you can expect every script you included to be accesible after you included it.

Your page should still work without JavaScript anyway, so a user clicking a button extremely fast will just temporarily have a somewhat degraded experience.
That being said, the DOM is basically ready when the HTML document all scripts are loaded. Since you cannot execute meaningful JavaScript before the JavaScript code is loaded (duh), I'd have a close look at page performance. Sending an HTML document and 2,3 JavaScript files should not be slow.
You could also use the old-style inline event handlers, like <button onclick="registerButtonClickEvent()">. However, this would introduce a complex, potentially buggy and hardly testable layer of temporary event holding.

If your <script src="jquery-whatever.js> line precedes the first clickable element in your HTML, it is guaranteed that the jquery library will be loaded and run before the user has anything useful to click on.
Just don't add async or defer attributes to the script element.

The onload event isn't triggered from all html elements, so you're forced to wait for window load. It doesn't matter where you load jQuery since it will have to wait for document to be ready. That total time required to load jQuery plus the rest of the document will be thet same.

Is it OK to put javascript code anywhere in HTML code?

I see that Javascript code is normally in heading part of HTML code.
<head>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="core.js"></script>
...
</head>
Is it OK to put the Javascript code in a body part of HTML code? I tested it, but it seems to work.
<body>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="core.js"></script>
...
</body>
If so, why the examples of Javascript books put the javascript code in heading part?
If not, what's the difference between putting the javascript code in body/heading part?

Not only is it OK, it's actually better, since it lets the content come first.
If your viewers have a slow (eg, mobile) connection, it's better to send the actual content first, so that they can read it while the browser downloads the Javascript.

All the people saying it is better only applies if you are talking about at the bottom of the page (and that is an up for debate thing) from a code quality point of view, it is NOT ok to sprinkle script tags through your html. All references to javascript should be in a single place on the page, either the head (where they should be), or the very bottom (as a perf optimization)
Edit:
Basically, a web page is made up of 3 pieces; style (css), structure (html), and behavior (javascript). These pieces are all very distinct, so it makes sense to keep them as separate as possible. That way if you need to change some javascript, it is all in one place. If it is sprinkled through the file, it becomes much more difficult to find the code you are looking for, and that code basically becomes noise when you are just looking at structure.
It is the same arguments as why not sprinkle db access code all over your page. It has nothing to do with technical reasons, purely an architectural/design decision. Code that does different things should be kept separate for readability, maintainability, and by extension, refactorability (not sure if that last one is actually a word...)

You can do it, and people often do.
For example, people like to put their script tags just before the closing </body> to make web pages render quicker.
Also, if you do a script block after an element is created, you don't need to wait for DOM ready.
Be warned though, don't add, or remove an element from an unclosed ancestor in the markup tree (not including the script block's immediate parent element), or you will get the dreaded Operation Aborted error in IE.

Just something to add on:
I have preference of putting Javascript file right before </body>. My reasons being that:
Content can load and be shown first. If you load huge Javascript files first, which most are meaningless until the page is loaded, the user won't be able to see anything until the JS files are loaded.
Most Javascript code require to work with the UI can only run after the UI has been loaded. Placing the codes at the end of the html file reduces the need to use the onload event handler.
It is very bad habit to place Javascript snippets all over the HTML file. Placing all at the back of the HTML file allows you to manage your Javascript more efficiently.

It is legal according to the spec.
Most examples use them in the header as the headers come first and the browser will be able to parse the reference and download the JS files faster.
Additionally, these are links and are not part of the display, so traditionally, put in the header.

It is perfectly legal but there seem to be some differing opinions about it. Those who say to put all the javascript references in the head argue that the script is downloaded before the rest of the page become visible and dependent on it. So your user will not see an object on screen, attempt to interact with it and get an error because the javascript code is not yet loaded.
On the other hand, the argument goes that it takes longer to load all the script before the user sees the page and that can have a negative impact on perceived speed of your site.

JavaScripts inside body will be executed immediately while the page loads into the browser
Placing javascript at the end of the body will defer javascript load (ie: the page will render faster), but remember that any javascript function used for an event should be loaded before the event declaration, it is mainly because users may be able to fire an event before the page is completely loaded (so before the function is loaded)!

I used to put it in the head, then I've heard that it takes longer for the page to load so I started placing the scripts at the very bottom. However, I found out the most 'clean' way to do it is to place it in the head BUT you place the script inside a document.ready function. This way you have the best of both worlds. It is cleaner because it is in the head and it is not loaded before the content has been loaded, so there aren't any problems performance wise either.
With jQuery for instance, you can do it like this:
$(document).ready(function() {
alert('test');
});
The alert will only popup when the page has been fully loaded, even though the script is in the head.