Develop Reference

Techniques to implement javascript enabled websites that also run without it

I'm looking for design patterns, frameworks or techniques to implement a web page that fulfills these requeriments:
The web pages are rendered statically at first load, without needing any JavaScript support.
If enabled, JavaScript should be used to load new portions of the website when the user tries to follow a link, and change the URL accordingly using the HTML5 history api or equivalent.
If not available, new pages should be loaded statically by following the links.
I shouldn't write the code twice, obviously. This would lead to inconsistencies.
I've been thinking on this problem for a while but I haven't come with an answer.
Edit: MVC sounds like a good start to solve this problem, but I definitely want to avoid writing the views code twice.

This requires backend support, so the techonology of your backend matters.
That said, this sound an awful lot like the rails library Turbolinks:
https://github.com/rails/turbolinks/
On the front end alone, supporting JS and non-JS is known as Graceful Degredation and there are lots of articles on it all over the web.

If I understand your problem, I think these links will help:
http://www.implico.pl/lang-en/ajaxgetcontent_dynamic_ajax_website,7.html
http://www.asual.com/jquery/address/
There is also a github project (browserstate/history.js) to handle this, but I dont post more links, I need reputatión :p

Creating a fully functional website while only using vanilla coding

When I say "Vanilla Coding", I am referring to websites that don't utilize server side coding (such as PHP, ASP, etc.), only HTML, JavaScript, and CSS.
I know that there are a plethora of sites that already exist that don't utilize (to my knowledge) any of the common, server side languages used by many others (PHP, ASP, etc.), but still function just fine!
I am confused! How do these sites continue to save login information, keep records, etc. etc. without using a server side scripting language? Is there something that I am missing? Can JavaScript access more (such as databases and local files) than what I thought it could?
EDIT
Turns out I've made a serious and shameful mistake in assuming that just because it ended with a .html extension that it was client-side only. That is okay though because I'm learning. Thanks so much for the help everybody!

Essentially, unless you have some sort of server-side programming, you don't stand a chance at making a site with any amount of functionality. To break it down for you:
What you can do without server-side scripting:
Serve static pages
What you need server-side scripting for:
Absolutely everything else
Even something so simple as keeping a site consistent and up to date is a nightmare on wheels without, at the very least, some some sort of management system that pre-generates the static pages to be served. (Technically, one could argue that Copy+Paste in Notepad counts as this.)
As has been mentioned elsewhere; obfuscating the true nature of precisely what system is being used is trivial; and having URLs ending in, say, .html while using PHP is no issue.
Edit: In the most perverse case I can think of off the top of my head, you could have a lighttpd server masquerading as an IIS server, serving pages generated by an offline renderer fed to it by a Perl FastCGI script, sent together with PHP signature heading and using a mix of .asp and .jsp file extensions.
Of course, noone would do something as silly as that. I think…

No client side script can access server side information (like a database) without some sort of server side communication (through something like ajax or the like)
If you really ( i mean really as in don't do it ) want to do logins and the like on clients side, you would have to make some sort of cookie that you store on the user's computer, also you would need a list of users (which anyone can read) to use against

This answer is very late but I leave this reply for anyone who may stumble upon it.
Using javascript/jQuery, and various APIs a simple site can be created only using client-side coding.
For instance, a simple shopping cart type of site can be created. I've done it before.
There are few (not many) strictly 100% jQuery based shopping cart solutions that are open-source.
How does the PG (pay gateway) get taken care of? You are limited to accepting payment through paypal, google checkout, and direct deposit.
What about allowing customers to leave comment? You can use API's like Disqus. What about chat support? Zopim is pretty handy.
How do you get notified when purchase is made? Paypal & google checkout notifies you.
What about sending mass email? Mail Chimp.
Personally, I almost always use WordPress or some other types of CMS but using only vanilla coding to build a simple site is not only feasible but very sensible in certain circumstances.

You're not going to see whether a site is using a server side language unless they let you see the file extensions. With URL rewriting, MVC patterns, etc., it's easy to hide, or even fake that information. Therefore, chances are very good that the sites that you think aren't using a server side language are actually using one.
Now, a site can save certain information in cookies, such as some basic preferences, but any authentication they appear to be doing wouldn't actually be doing anything without a server-side script accessing a database somewhere.
As a side note - I have worked on a site where the content was actually static, but made to look like a blog or CMS. It was an absolute nightmare and hugely error-prone.
What are these sites that you think aren't using server-side scripting?

Nowadays a lot of sites are using Javascript as a server side solution, Node.js being the most popular. Check out this list: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Projects,-Applications,-and-Companies-Using-Node

How to track my jQuery plugin's usage?

I would like to know if there is a way of tracking who is using my jQuery plugin by using some javascript code inside the plugin itself. My plugin is being used on different sites, so I'd like to know where it is being used and how many times it is being accessed.

You could just present a registration form for people to fill out before the download the source code, asking them for some basic contact information and the website they'll be using it on. I don't think #SLaks' idea of a 1x1 pixel gif is that bad of an idea, however it does cause additional load on both your server and it's also an additional request for the visitors to all the sites that use your plugin.
Because jQuery plugins are just plain JavaScript code, many people might just remove the part that adds the tracking image, considering it to be an invasion of privacy or just a waste of resources, or for whatever reasons. They may feel like it was trickery or it was "snuck in". Asking for people to register however it a clear demonstration of your motives. It's not sneaky, you're clearly wanting to track usage and I think most developers will understand that.
Even if the registration form is optional it should give you a pretty good feel for who's downloading and using your plugin.

You could create an <img> element in the plugin that points to a server-side script that increments a counter. (This would work across domains)
However, this could be viewed as spying, especially for intranet sites.
It would probably be very controversial; I wouldn't recommend it.

You could easily do a get request to an API on your server. For example just
$.get("http://youserver.com/api/track/");
And then on your server you could see who was it was that used your plugin using PHPs $_SERVER["REMOTE_HOST"] and incrament a counter.

JSONP vs IFrame?

Soon I'll be needing to build a widget that some of our clients can embed in their own websites.
To future proof my widget the embed code would be something like this:
<script type="text/javascript" src="path/to/remote/file.js"></script>
<div id="my_widget"></div>
What are the strengths and weaknesses of iframes vs JSONP?
Are there any common SEO based issues with iframes?

First of all, iframes and jsonp are not mutually exclusive: one is a rendering mean, the other is a communication mean.
Your choice is rather between in-document inclusion (that is creating the widget within the host DOM) or in-iframe inclusion (that is having a new, separate DOM for the widget).
The advantage of an iframe is sandboxing: no collision between your widget and the host's javascript and css. That means you can safely:
use/define any javascript library you want
use simple html code together with simple css rules (which is a clear bonus for maintenance)
As for the drawbacks:
an iframe is heavy-weight and may seriously slow down host page rendering
the iframe will also consume much more memory and resources, which may be a problem if the host page is targetted at mobiles
So, if it is reasonable to assume people using your widget will be willing to "adapt" their pages for it, go the in-document way. If not, use an iframe but understand the limits.
As for SEO issues, as long as you dynamically create the widget (whether it's in-document or with an iframe), search engines won't see it. I dunno if that's what you want, but that's what you'll get ;)

Heres some slides from a presentation on cross domain scripting by Alex Sexton
http://www.slideshare.net/SlexAxton/breaking-the-cross-domain-barrier
Unfortunately its just the slides so is missing the accompanying explanations but could be helpful

If you're making API calls and only fetching data, JSONP will result in better performance. If you're rendering things, then you must use iframes. If you want to prevent the host site from access to your widget data, iframes are the way to go. But if your data is public, then JSONP will result in a simpler implementation (since iframes will mean you need to deal with resizing). On the flip side, iframes provide for good CSS sandboxing, so you won't collide with the host page's CSS.

I chose to go with JSONP. You can see the details of how I implemented it here:
if I allow partner sites to republish my RSS feed, will that boost my SEO ranking?
Some people gave their opinions on SEO. I'm still not sure, however, if it helps SEO. I just got an idea to test it though, and I'm going to carry it out right now! I'm going to make a page with just the JavaScript that renders the widget (feed in this case). Then, I'll use Google's Webmaster Tools to see if Google picks up any of the keywords in the feed content. I'll post the answer to the link above after I get the results.
Wish us the best!
Matt

When NOT to use AJAX in web application development? [closed]

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.