AJAX Websites (Closed)
Anyone planning on doing a website with AJAX? Or know of any good AJAX sites? Or any AJAX sites that are in development?
Also I think this forum should be adapted to use it, as it would be a lot better and more powerful.
Also I think this forum should be adapted to use it, as it would be a lot better and more powerful.
Yeah I agree, this ajax is much worse.
Those too aren't the sort of AJAX I mean! I mean Asyncronous Java and XML.
They might just be teasing you there...
You ever heard of playing along with a joke in order to get a laugh yourself? Because that's what I was doing.
You're too presumptuous dearie... that little comment was sarcasm too... but then, perhaps that word isn't 'advanced' enough for you...
And it certainly didn't come across as 'playing along with the joke'... since you spelt out for everyone what you meant by AJAX... saying something like 'Hey, that's not what I meant! I was referring to Apparitions Jubilous and Xenophobic!' might have been closer to the mark... (ok, bad example, but I was trying to be quick)
And it certainly didn't come across as 'playing along with the joke'... since you spelt out for everyone what you meant by AJAX... saying something like 'Hey, that's not what I meant! I was referring to Apparitions Jubilous and Xenophobic!' might have been closer to the mark... (ok, bad example, but I was trying to be quick)
No that would be having my own joke. Playing along with a joke is pretending that you didn't realise it was a joke.
AJAX is harmful to the web, generally. Why? It's a rather inaccessible technology. If you don't know what accessibility on the web is, go read up on it. You might learn something important.
Of course, accessibility should be thought of always, and not just with AJAX.
Of course, accessibility should be thought of always, and not just with AJAX.
AJAX is actually quite accessible. It's almost identical to Javascript and XML, making it quite accessible and easy to learn. It's also a very powerful language. Botrh Microsoft and Yahoo are replacing their existing email services with AJAX versions. And I suspect that Gmail now uses AJAX to some extent. With AJAX you can make fully functional web applications that are as fast and powerful as desktop versions. For example the beta of the new version of Yahoo! Mail and the beta of Windows Live Mail update their interface on the fly and when you delete a email you no longer have to wait for an interface update - it updates instantly, while the request for the delete is still being processed. Also they have context menus that are usually seen in desktop email clients not web based ones. They also has shortcut keys like desktop applications. And thats not the end of their simularities to desktop applications, especially to desktop email clients (they even have a multi-pane system like Outlook).
Accessible as in The W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. JavaScript and XML don't make a page more accessible than a standard (X)HTML page.
LATE ADDITION: This also includes taking into account user agents (usually browsers, but can be other programs too) having JavaScript and Java Applets disabled. (See checkpoint 6.3)
LATE ADDITION: This also includes taking into account user agents (usually browsers, but can be other programs too) having JavaScript and Java Applets disabled. (See checkpoint 6.3)
Cheer up DraconicDink dont take everything so seriously! It's 10 past midnight and its happy hour!
Do you always feel the need to preach DD? For someone who apparently has such a grip on reality, you sure have exaggerated ideas re your superiority... There's no need to talk to me or anyone else like we're idiots. Its just rude.
I wasn't talking to anyone like they're an idiot. And as for "belief in my superiority" I was in fact quoting a local PC magazine.
No. No. and No.
Happy hour isn't untill the 29 hour of wakefullness. It finished near the 32 hour. Then it starts again near the 62, and continues untill you either colapse from exhaution, like I usually do, or get a heart attack.
Happy hour isn't untill the 29 hour of wakefullness. It finished near the 32 hour. Then it starts again near the 62, and continues untill you either colapse from exhaution, like I usually do, or get a heart attack.
Oh, don't get me started on PC magazines. There are so many incompetent people writing those things it sometimes hurts me to read their articles. They often don't research properly, they teach the wrong principles, they reach the wrong conclusions... There was once this tutorial on learning HTML and another one on learning Javascript, e.g., and neither did it properly. These were learning articles though, there are also lots of crap in other kinds of articles... like one which compared browsers, and ended up giving Internet Explorer more score than Opera, based on the fact that it rendered more pages correctly. I just shiver when such incompetency ends up in magazines that "laypeople" read.
Indeed. Just turn Javascript off, and your "AJAX" application totally fails. And trust me, many user agents don't support Javascript at all, even. For instance, text-only browsers, screen-readers (normally), low-end equipment, like mobile phones (although newer ones are getting a better support), and in any case, I shouldn't have to tell you this. I told you to go read up on it. Magicman's link here is the most thorough, although also one of the least "user-friendly" ones.
Even more importantly, the browser's back button often doesn't work in Gmail's standard (JavaScript/AJAX) view. If the back button doesn't work, you've made a lousy site. Just like all those "flash only" sites out there. Eww.
There's a way to fix the broken back button in AJAX though.
I somehow got interested in AJAX last week. It does allow for some really cool web 2.0 sites though, I wouldn't disregard it so quickly.
I somehow got interested in AJAX last week. It does allow for some really cool web 2.0 sites though, I wouldn't disregard it so quickly.
Well PCWorld New Zealand is full of compitent people who have plenty of experience working as network techies. Also NetGuide has said AJAX is a good thing and they, too, are competent (though not as much so as PCWorld). This is evident with their knowledge of advanced PC things.
Who cares about network techies? I'm talking about making the web accessible to everybody. It's well known that Javascript-driven stuff does the quite opposite. So I'm thinking, these PCWorld people don't give a shoot. How about you? Do you care?
I can appreciate your excellent judgment on PC magazine makers' competency and knowledge of advanced PC things. Please share more of your wisdom.
Seriously, it's out of the DN etiquette to be super formal all the time. Besides, you're ignoring the actual question. Sure AJAX can likely be handy for some purpose (why else would it have been developed), but that wasn't the point here?
Seriously, it's out of the DN etiquette to be super formal all the time. Besides, you're ignoring the actual question. Sure AJAX can likely be handy for some purpose (why else would it have been developed), but that wasn't the point here?
And just as an aside... if you're quoting people, give them some credit (as in, reference it). Especially if it looks like they could be wrong... wouldn't want to be looking misinformed now Mr Reality...
You teases about my view of reality are getting annoying now and are really quite offensive.
I just read a little bit about AJAX at W3Schools Online Web Tutorials and it says it also uses HTML and CSS, which aren't considered unaccessable.
ADD: It also says: "The open standards used in AJAX are well defined, and supported by all major browsers. AJAX applications are browser and platform independent. (Cross-Platform, Cross-Browser technology)".
ADD: It also says: "The open standards used in AJAX are well defined, and supported by all major browsers. AJAX applications are browser and platform independent. (Cross-Platform, Cross-Browser technology)".
HTML and CSS do not fulfill some magical accessibility requirement. Only through proper usage of HTML and CSS can you create an accessible web site.
Requiring javascript (the 'J' in AJAX) to view a site will almost always make it inaccessible.
Requiring javascript (the 'J' in AJAX) to view a site will almost always make it inaccessible.
As my above post quoted from W3C School's site:
"The open standards used in AJAX are well defined, and supported by all major browsers. AJAX applications are browser and platform independent. (Cross-Platform, Cross-Browser technology)".
If all major browsers support it how would there be much of an issue?
"The open standards used in AJAX are well defined, and supported by all major browsers. AJAX applications are browser and platform independent. (Cross-Platform, Cross-Browser technology)".
If all major browsers support it how would there be much of an issue?
1) Search engines don't support it. If all of the content of your web site is hidden behind javascript calls, there's no way for Google to discover it.
2) Doesn't support mobile devices. Cell phones, PDA's, and portable game consoles are starting to go online. Many of them don't support javascript.
3) While not a major use, AJAX applications probably won't work for blind people using text reader web browsers.
AJAX is useful for web applications, specific tasks that don't fit the 'page' model of the internet. Google Maps, for example, is an awesome use of AJAX.
Incorporating AJAX into a page-based web site like The Dink Network would not be very beneficial.
2) Doesn't support mobile devices. Cell phones, PDA's, and portable game consoles are starting to go online. Many of them don't support javascript.
3) While not a major use, AJAX applications probably won't work for blind people using text reader web browsers.
AJAX is useful for web applications, specific tasks that don't fit the 'page' model of the internet. Google Maps, for example, is an awesome use of AJAX.
Incorporating AJAX into a page-based web site like The Dink Network would not be very beneficial.
If the consoles and cellphones don't support javascript that is a flaw in them not anything javascript based. Javascript is a popular and powerful web langauge, so they should adopt it (especially if they know what's best for them).
Besides with AJAX web applications can be made to be more powerful and faster, so since the main target (those using IE. Firefox, Opera, Mozilla and Netscape) can use it, it's quite a good thing. Besides I doubt most cellphones have the power to handle it.
As for the search engine comment: noone (as far as I know) has suggested making all of a page with javascript or HTML. AJAX isn't the best for everything, just for web applications, where it wins hands down. In other words Google could still find the website's home page, which is the most important page, especially for search results. Also I see no reason why search engines couldn't adapt. They had to when Google came along and started doing their type of searching, which had previously been considered implausible or too hard to do by most.
You also seem to suggest that it should cater to everyone and everything web related, which isn't just impossible and implausible, but also silly and ridiculous. It is meant for making web applications only, not whole websites.
Besides with AJAX web applications can be made to be more powerful and faster, so since the main target (those using IE. Firefox, Opera, Mozilla and Netscape) can use it, it's quite a good thing. Besides I doubt most cellphones have the power to handle it.
As for the search engine comment: noone (as far as I know) has suggested making all of a page with javascript or HTML. AJAX isn't the best for everything, just for web applications, where it wins hands down. In other words Google could still find the website's home page, which is the most important page, especially for search results. Also I see no reason why search engines couldn't adapt. They had to when Google came along and started doing their type of searching, which had previously been considered implausible or too hard to do by most.
You also seem to suggest that it should cater to everyone and everything web related, which isn't just impossible and implausible, but also silly and ridiculous. It is meant for making web applications only, not whole websites.
Do you realise that creating and maintaining a corporate network is one of the hardest and most advanced PC related things to do? You need to be one of the best and most well trained PC techie to get a job doing it. Because that's what PCWorld's staff have a lot of experience in.
Besides they have already proved to me that they are PC experts with their knowledge of advanced PC information. They have proved themselves knowledgeable and reliable.
Also here in New Zealand we only have about 2 million adults, less than half of which are potential buyers of PC magazines, so world of magazine people not knowing what they are talking about spreads extremely fast here. So they can't afford to have people unless they prove what that they are knowledgeable. Any magazine that does otherwise will fail. PCWorld has not. They are in fact New Zealand's most popular magazine, which would only happen with people that are knowledgeable as staff.
Besides they have already proved to me that they are PC experts with their knowledge of advanced PC information. They have proved themselves knowledgeable and reliable.
Also here in New Zealand we only have about 2 million adults, less than half of which are potential buyers of PC magazines, so world of magazine people not knowing what they are talking about spreads extremely fast here. So they can't afford to have people unless they prove what that they are knowledgeable. Any magazine that does otherwise will fail. PCWorld has not. They are in fact New Zealand's most popular magazine, which would only happen with people that are knowledgeable as staff.
I like bananas.
I didn't realise Google Maps used AJAX. But then last I knew about it it had a poor attempt at New Zealand that wasn't worth using, so I haven't bothered with it at all.
ADD: I just checked and it still isn't any good with New Zealand. Our major cities don't show up at all, even on the satelite image.
ADD: I just checked and it still isn't any good with New Zealand. Our major cities don't show up at all, even on the satelite image.
Define 'web applications.'
I see AJAX as only really useful for things such as Google Maps, or web e-mail. I don't see it as very useful in a forum context, as you suggested in your original post in this thread.
As for your other arguments purporting that web pages can't cater to everyone, and search engines shouldn't need to go any farther than a web site's home page... well... maybe Phoenix will fight the good fight.
I see AJAX as only really useful for things such as Google Maps, or web e-mail. I don't see it as very useful in a forum context, as you suggested in your original post in this thread.
As for your other arguments purporting that web pages can't cater to everyone, and search engines shouldn't need to go any farther than a web site's home page... well... maybe Phoenix will fight the good fight.
By web applications Imean things like the suggestions you gave and applications that would usually be done as a desktop application, such as Microsoft Office. I chose MS Office as my example because Microsoft is doing a online version of Microsoft Office called Office Live. There have also been rumours that Google would do an online office suite based on the OpenOffice source, using AJAX. This, however, is most likely udnfounded (Google have repeatedly denied it) and quite unlikely. Though their newfound alliance with Sun and their backing AJAX does make this more likely. I still doubt it'll happen though.
Just in case you missed it folks I am gonna sum up the last few hundred posts...
"You poopy head...my club beats your club"
"no it be you who be the poopy head and my club is bigger"
"oh..."
<insert redink here>
<collective sigh of relief>
But with all the seriousness I can muster after reading through that... redink, although I don't know much about it, is pretty dead on. From what I have seen, it could be used for a descent webmail system; however, I adhere to the beleif that, if aint broke...dont fix it...ideal, it might be clunky and unsophisticated but the present systems work fine for the majority of the populous and using something requiring java would cause problems eventually in one was or another...
"You poopy head...my club beats your club"
"no it be you who be the poopy head and my club is bigger"
"oh..."
<insert redink here>
<collective sigh of relief>
But with all the seriousness I can muster after reading through that... redink, although I don't know much about it, is pretty dead on. From what I have seen, it could be used for a descent webmail system; however, I adhere to the beleif that, if aint broke...dont fix it...ideal, it might be clunky and unsophisticated but the present systems work fine for the majority of the populous and using something requiring java would cause problems eventually in one was or another...
Java and javascript are not the same thing. The Java Runtime Enviroment is not required to run javascript. The main browsers (Firefox, Mozilla, IE, Opera and Netscape) all support it by default. Besides the Java Runtime Enviroment is extremely easy to get hold of in the case of the things that do need it.
In DraconicDink's case, I don't think we need to worry about it catering to more than perhaps 5 people, so why bother arguing?
W3Schools is a very unreliable source. None of their tutorial teaches proper practices, and in case you thought so, they have nothing to do with the W3C.
That's false, Opera does not yet support the XMLHttpRequest, or whatever it's called, so there's one major player out of the league for you.
And it's NOT W3C Schools! It's W3Schools, and they have nothing to do with the W3C. *sigh*
My point, if you had been paying attention, is that the web was created with the intention to be device independent and disability-independent. By making up and using such accessibility-restraining technologies, you're ruining the very premise of the web itself.
And it's NOT W3C Schools! It's W3Schools, and they have nothing to do with the W3C. *sigh*
My point, if you had been paying attention, is that the web was created with the intention to be device independent and disability-independent. By making up and using such accessibility-restraining technologies, you're ruining the very premise of the web itself.
JavaScript is an enhancement language at best. A proper browser has no other requirement than to support HTML. None other.
CSS is a secondary layer, which is optional, and any scripting language is tertiary. Scripting should only be used to do stuff that would also work when scripting is disabled, such as validating a form before it's submitted, and so on.
I'm not saying you cannot use AJAX, by the way, but if you do, you must also do as Google has done, and make a version that does not use it as well. (Their "plain HTML" version) The problem is, just like with sites driven by Flash, is that people just don't do this.
And with search engines, you have totally missed the point. It's rarely a site's home page that is of interest when you are looking for something. Let's say I'm, e.g., looking for information about "catnip". That would likely be on a site about cats. Would that be on the front page, you think? No. It would probably be somewhere deeper in the site's hierarchy. Thus, a decent search engine would need to go deeper than the home page of a site.
As for search engines adapting to things like AJAX: I don't think so. It would require so much more processing power if a search engine were to learn to parse javascript. It would take immense more computing power with Google (or other search engines) to get that working properly, not to mention that such things usually require user intervention to work, which a computer could never simulate correctly anyway.
Yes, the web should and was intended to cater to everybody, and it does so when you make your pages using HTML with CSS and Javascript as an enhancer only. What happens server-side (e.g. with PHP) does not harm accessibility at all. That's why they were invented.
CSS is a secondary layer, which is optional, and any scripting language is tertiary. Scripting should only be used to do stuff that would also work when scripting is disabled, such as validating a form before it's submitted, and so on.
I'm not saying you cannot use AJAX, by the way, but if you do, you must also do as Google has done, and make a version that does not use it as well. (Their "plain HTML" version) The problem is, just like with sites driven by Flash, is that people just don't do this.
And with search engines, you have totally missed the point. It's rarely a site's home page that is of interest when you are looking for something. Let's say I'm, e.g., looking for information about "catnip". That would likely be on a site about cats. Would that be on the front page, you think? No. It would probably be somewhere deeper in the site's hierarchy. Thus, a decent search engine would need to go deeper than the home page of a site.
As for search engines adapting to things like AJAX: I don't think so. It would require so much more processing power if a search engine were to learn to parse javascript. It would take immense more computing power with Google (or other search engines) to get that working properly, not to mention that such things usually require user intervention to work, which a computer could never simulate correctly anyway.
Yes, the web should and was intended to cater to everybody, and it does so when you make your pages using HTML with CSS and Javascript as an enhancer only. What happens server-side (e.g. with PHP) does not harm accessibility at all. That's why they were invented.
A person that creates and maintains a corporate network may still not know anything about making a proper website. So that argument is just false.
And trust me, most people don't know how to make a web site without using tables for layout. (This example I use because it's accessibility-restraining, and a very common mistake among beginners and even so-called "advanced" web designers alike.) So anyone with just a tiny bit of knowledge on how to make a website can easily convince those who know nothing that the way they teach is the correct way of doing things.
And trust me, most people don't know how to make a web site without using tables for layout. (This example I use because it's accessibility-restraining, and a very common mistake among beginners and even so-called "advanced" web designers alike.) So anyone with just a tiny bit of knowledge on how to make a website can easily convince those who know nothing that the way they teach is the correct way of doing things.
Burrrrrn!
A toast, a very grand toast to Phoenix, and a standing ovation to redink as well. Brilliant work gentlemen. And the sarcasm from the rest of you (have you learnt what that is yet Mr Reality? Ooops, I mean, Mr Un-emotional, oops no that's not it... Mr I-know-everything-and-you-suggesting-otherwise-is-naive, no, I mean Draconic Dink... sorry bout that) is worthy of commendation too. A job well done. *Ice pops the cork on a magnum of champers and celebrates*
You misunderstand my point. I never meant to say or imply that AJAX would replace HTML, XHTML, or DHTML. I meant to suugest for it to be an enhancer (like you said) and used for web applications only.
Also do you realise that when Google brgan indexing as many pages as they do now it took just such a jump in processing power? They started off in a garage with a few PCs and at first that's all they needed. It didn't take long though before they needed to create the Googleplex (or whatever the head office with their huge network is called).
Also do you realise that when Google brgan indexing as many pages as they do now it took just such a jump in processing power? They started off in a garage with a few PCs and at first that's all they needed. It didn't take long though before they needed to create the Googleplex (or whatever the head office with their huge network is called).
Actually my cousin who knows a lot about computers say they are a good place to learn. And since I know his credentials better than yours (which I don't know at all) I'll take his word over yours.
Actually I know for a fact (due to evidence) that they do in fact know about making websites (and software on a related point).
I never said I was unemotional. I just said I control my emotions. I'm no Vulcan (see Star Trek if you don't know what I kmean).
Mr I-know-everything-and-you-suggesting-otherwise-is-naive
I have no idea how you got the idea that I was saying that. It's just that unless people provide satisfactory evidence that I am wrong and they are right I have no reason to switch to thinking as they do, hence I stick to what I believe. Noone here has supplied satisfactory evidence to disprove me yet.
Mr I-know-everything-and-you-suggesting-otherwise-is-naive
I have no idea how you got the idea that I was saying that. It's just that unless people provide satisfactory evidence that I am wrong and they are right I have no reason to switch to thinking as they do, hence I stick to what I believe. Noone here has supplied satisfactory evidence to disprove me yet.
Why do you always take people who "know a lot about computers" as a source for learning stuff about the web? Knowing lots about computers does not imply you know lots about the web, and given that your cousin says that place is a good place to learn, I can deduct that he is not well learnt in the (right) ways of the web.
Ah... but AJAX is DHTML.
Yes, I know how Google started. But I'm saying, it's impossible to index Javascript, due to the interactivity it requires.
Yes, I know how Google started. But I'm saying, it's impossible to index Javascript, due to the interactivity it requires.
If nothing of what I have said has even slightly convinced you yet, I would support the "I-know-everything"-stamp you've been given. You fend off basically my points by saying "Ah, but Mr. Someone Else says different, so that means you are wrong" without even trying to check if I'm right or not.
I know for a fact that I am, because I have devoted lots of my time for learning about the web, especially when it comes to doing things the Right Way(TM). You may think that "Oh, by just turning him down enough times, I can make him go away", but I will keep on refuting every wrong claim you make until you get a grip. Which may take forever, as Ice here says.
As for "sticking to what you believe"... doesn't believing defeat your philosophy? I thought you were a "knower"?
I know for a fact that I am, because I have devoted lots of my time for learning about the web, especially when it comes to doing things the Right Way(TM). You may think that "Oh, by just turning him down enough times, I can make him go away", but I will keep on refuting every wrong claim you make until you get a grip. Which may take forever, as Ice here says.
As for "sticking to what you believe"... doesn't believing defeat your philosophy? I thought you were a "knower"?
Well, just to be fair, there's nothing saying that someone can believe in something that's not right. It's their choice to belive in it or not, and if they do, they do.
I think that you should both just agree to disagree. Further arguing at this point *is* pointless, as neither of you are willing to concide the point. Now I'm not saying that I don't believe one side over the other, all I'm saying is that the argument is... futile. In the worst way.
But I know *nothing* as Sgt. Schultz would say, so I'll just quitely leave this thread the way I saw it, and go back to ripping metal deposits off glass beakers via EDTA. Whoo yaa.
I think that you should both just agree to disagree. Further arguing at this point *is* pointless, as neither of you are willing to concide the point. Now I'm not saying that I don't believe one side over the other, all I'm saying is that the argument is... futile. In the worst way.
But I know *nothing* as Sgt. Schultz would say, so I'll just quitely leave this thread the way I saw it, and go back to ripping metal deposits off glass beakers via EDTA. Whoo yaa.
"I think that you should both just agree to disagree. Further arguing at this point *is* pointless, as neither of you are willing to concide the point. Now I'm not saying that I don't believe one side over the other, all I'm saying is that the argument is... futile. In the worst way."
I agree wholeheartedly. And with my magical abilities to Close This Thread and Shut Your Silliness Up, hopefully that has some bearing.
I agree wholeheartedly. And with my magical abilities to Close This Thread and Shut Your Silliness Up, hopefully that has some bearing.
Why should I believe you over myself and my sources that have already proven themselves to me when you have yet to do so? That would just be stupid and irrational and I have no intent to be either.
Not stupid, it would be objective.
LATE ADDITION:
You have given the other sources a chance to prove themselves, why would you only follow them? That's like just following the thing that you've heard the most (or alternatively, that you've heard the first). Thát'd be irrational. Try Phoenix's way of creating good webpages too, and then make up what you deem is best.
LATE ADDITION:
You have given the other sources a chance to prove themselves, why would you only follow them? That's like just following the thing that you've heard the most (or alternatively, that you've heard the first). Thát'd be irrational. Try Phoenix's way of creating good webpages too, and then make up what you deem is best.
Say what, Tal? You want to disallow free speech? That would be what I would call power abuse, as nothing in this thread has yet caused any kind of havoc or flaming, or whatever you wanna call it.
What would be stupid is not even giving my points a chance, but just fending them off by saying that I need to "prove" myself to you. I don't feel a need to prove myself to you. You don't listen to reason anyway.
In any case, I'm going to listen to what Chrispy the Cornflake here said, and drop out of this discussion now. You hold on to your so-called "professionally based" beliefs. You've proven time and again that you have a locked mindset, so I guess it would be pointless going further. At least I've hopefully given others who read this thread and care about these things some useful information.
In any case, I'm going to listen to what Chrispy the Cornflake here said, and drop out of this discussion now. You hold on to your so-called "professionally based" beliefs. You've proven time and again that you have a locked mindset, so I guess it would be pointless going further. At least I've hopefully given others who read this thread and care about these things some useful information.
Indeed. I finally agree with you Phoesnix. This is a calm debate, Tal. Not a abusive argument or any such thing that deserves closing.
For starters I'm not saying you should feel a need to prove yourself to me. I am simply saying that without porrof of what you say I see no reason to switch to your view rather than use my own.
Also it is not that I am not giving your view a chance. It is just that I have not seen complelling enough evidence for me to switch from mine to yours.
Lastly I am not of a "locked mindset". I am of a "requires evidence to switch my view mindset". There is a huge difference between the two. If someone can supply me with good enough evidence that my view is wrong and their's is right then I am quite happy to change my view to theirs. If you don't believe me ask Binary Lord, he's done it quite a few times, especially in the last 6 months.
Also it is not that I am not giving your view a chance. It is just that I have not seen complelling enough evidence for me to switch from mine to yours.
Lastly I am not of a "locked mindset". I am of a "requires evidence to switch my view mindset". There is a huge difference between the two. If someone can supply me with good enough evidence that my view is wrong and their's is right then I am quite happy to change my view to theirs. If you don't believe me ask Binary Lord, he's done it quite a few times, especially in the last 6 months.
Draconic Dink. Firstly, let me tell you that what I say next is completely devoid of sarcasm, and is no way intended to be argumentative.
One of the biggest problems I have with how you come across on this board (taking into account the fact that a forum doesn't facilitate subtlety of expression)... is your apparent closemindedness. I'm certainly not trying to convince you that you are wrong, and I don't think anyone else expects you to change your opinion... but instead we're posing opinions, beliefs, facts etc for you to think about, to consider, to ponder. My intention in arguing with you was not to change your mind necessarily, but to make you justify what you believe, (sating my curiosity) and broaden your mind to the thoughts of others. Your thinking does seem rather unflexible... to the point that your philsophy appears irrational.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or offended you... but I would ask that you take the above into account in your future dealings with me, and certain other members of the board... and for your own sake, remember that most of the time I'm dreadfully sarcastic.
Ice.
N.B I do hope that was reasonably eloquent, again a 'just-about-to-go-to-bed-and-crash-out-of-exhaustion' post
One of the biggest problems I have with how you come across on this board (taking into account the fact that a forum doesn't facilitate subtlety of expression)... is your apparent closemindedness. I'm certainly not trying to convince you that you are wrong, and I don't think anyone else expects you to change your opinion... but instead we're posing opinions, beliefs, facts etc for you to think about, to consider, to ponder. My intention in arguing with you was not to change your mind necessarily, but to make you justify what you believe, (sating my curiosity) and broaden your mind to the thoughts of others. Your thinking does seem rather unflexible... to the point that your philsophy appears irrational.
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or offended you... but I would ask that you take the above into account in your future dealings with me, and certain other members of the board... and for your own sake, remember that most of the time I'm dreadfully sarcastic.
Ice.
N.B I do hope that was reasonably eloquent, again a 'just-about-to-go-to-bed-and-crash-out-of-exhaustion' post
I wasn't entirely serious about closing the thread - yes, it is a calm debate, not one of bickering and flaming that would easily justify a quick close. But it is also an intensely dull debate. What it basically boils down to, in my opinion, is Draconic saying "I am really stubborn and refuse to budge" and Phoenix retorting with "What do you know, I'm not quite as bad, but I'm similar to you, let's be friends and fill this thread with drivel." Simply put, it's boring and I grow weary of it.
"But oh," you say, "why don't you just stop reading it?" I'm a moderator, buddy. I'm sorta obligated to read all your crap and make sure you don't harass anyone, try to blow up the message board, etc. etc. It would be highly relieving if you would stop and consider carrying it out to the PM system, since it seems like only you two really care. And yes, this is just me whining, nothing more. Noone cares to read whining, but there is Phoenix's aforementioned "free speech" - I can whine here. And chances are nobody will care about it, but hey, watch me go. And few people, I think, will really care about 50 people going into the "how do you view the forum" thread and saying "yeah, I view the forum like this, like it has any bearing on anything". But can you do it? Yes.
...and can you carry on boring debates here? Yes you can, creating a beautiful loop in my argument/bickering (as the case tends to be) and making my post seem silly. But it'd be great if you'd do this mod a favor. I'll give you a candy bar, even.
/end weird rant
Edit: Well dang, it looks like Phoenix decided to drop out after all. I'll leave this here anyway, since I had an amusing time writing it. I really like Cheetos puffs...
"But oh," you say, "why don't you just stop reading it?" I'm a moderator, buddy. I'm sorta obligated to read all your crap and make sure you don't harass anyone, try to blow up the message board, etc. etc. It would be highly relieving if you would stop and consider carrying it out to the PM system, since it seems like only you two really care. And yes, this is just me whining, nothing more. Noone cares to read whining, but there is Phoenix's aforementioned "free speech" - I can whine here. And chances are nobody will care about it, but hey, watch me go. And few people, I think, will really care about 50 people going into the "how do you view the forum" thread and saying "yeah, I view the forum like this, like it has any bearing on anything". But can you do it? Yes.
...and can you carry on boring debates here? Yes you can, creating a beautiful loop in my argument/bickering (as the case tends to be) and making my post seem silly. But it'd be great if you'd do this mod a favor. I'll give you a candy bar, even.
/end weird rant
Edit: Well dang, it looks like Phoenix decided to drop out after all. I'll leave this here anyway, since I had an amusing time writing it. I really like Cheetos puffs...
Hm... well, I have no hard evidence right now, at least none "strong" enough to be convincing. I am, however, working on a HTML and CSS tutorial, that will essentially discuss most of what I've been discussing with you right now, so if you like, I could show you this when it's done. Yes. (It is progressing a bit slowly though, since I have three or four other things going on)
"I am really stubborn and refuse to budge"
How many times do I have to say that I'm not just being stubborn before any of you realise I'm saying it! If anyone supplies me with satisfactory evidence I will budge!
I'm a moderator, buddy. I'm sorta obligated to read all your crap
I at least understand this. I don't know about anyone else. As soon as I created my forum I realised that I'd have to do that regardless of how boring any topics are to me.
How many times do I have to say that I'm not just being stubborn before any of you realise I'm saying it! If anyone supplies me with satisfactory evidence I will budge!
I'm a moderator, buddy. I'm sorta obligated to read all your crap
I at least understand this. I don't know about anyone else. As soon as I created my forum I realised that I'd have to do that regardless of how boring any topics are to me.
Ok. When it's done I'll look at it and happilu=y give you the fair chance you requested. As for it taking you a while, well I understand. I have a dozen projects I am working on that make doing any of them slow since there are so many of them. And next week I can add university study to the list.
Upset me? Far from it. If anything it "calmed" me. As for giving everyone's thoughts and views consideration... well, I have. I just decided that they did not provide me with enough evidence to disprove my prior evidence. That is not what I'd call close-mindedness.
Ok, ok... maybe you should let people know what you think is right with their arguments as well then, cause being defensive (something I do as well, a shared flaw) is what makes you appear stubborn or close-minded in my humble opinion, whether you really are or not. People don't realise the amount of time and consideration you give to their thoughts unless you tell them... (dang internet and its-not-facilitating-subtleties-of-expression)
Edit: Oooh and Tal, I'm sorry for subjecting you to some more 'useless drivel'
Edit: Oooh and Tal, I'm sorry for subjecting you to some more 'useless drivel'
If you want, and have quite a bit of time on your hands, you can read the article I wrote called the ideal web, which discusses the things I care for when it comes to the web. The scope of that article goes way beyond just HTML and its "partners", though, so it's not really too representative. However, the sections called "Valid markup and style sheets + semantics" and "Accessibility" have some relevancy.
Oh yeah, and also take note that the article is not complete. I'm going to add more to it, and rewrite many parts of it once I find time.
Oh yeah, and also take note that the article is not complete. I'm going to add more to it, and rewrite many parts of it once I find time.
I would like to ask: do you have any qualifications to back up your claims. This is not an attempt to dispute you by the way.
Lately I hardly said when I agreed with people because lately there wasn't much. When I did agree I said it. Also you must of noticed that by now when I disagree I tend to say so more often than not. So when I don't say anything that should be taken as most likely I agree or am neutral. There is the odd time when I disagree and don't say anything (such as when I get sick of arguing/ debating about a topic), but this is rare so should only be given a minor consideration and considered the less likely situation.
This is quite possibly the biggest thread I created! I know that doesn't mean anything, but for some strange reason I felt like sharing that realisation of mine.
This is quite possibly the biggest thread I created! I know that doesn't mean anything, but for some strange reason I felt like sharing that realisation of mine.
What kind of "qualifications" are we talking about?
Besides having made websites for about nine years, and, unlike many people, always trying to improve my skill and knowledge, I am now making sites using valid HTML and CSS, (As in, I follow the Web Standards set by the W3C) I make my sites accessible, by following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. (also set by the W3C)
If you're thinking about the kind of "certificates" you can get from certain "computer schools", I must say no. I will never get one of these either. Why? Because I don't trust some company to evaluate my skill. Most of these companies give out "certificates" to people whose sites end up being so horribly filled with crap (and I'm not necessarily talking about the content) that I don't want to have anything to do with those companies.
Besides having made websites for about nine years, and, unlike many people, always trying to improve my skill and knowledge, I am now making sites using valid HTML and CSS, (As in, I follow the Web Standards set by the W3C) I make my sites accessible, by following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. (also set by the W3C)
If you're thinking about the kind of "certificates" you can get from certain "computer schools", I must say no. I will never get one of these either. Why? Because I don't trust some company to evaluate my skill. Most of these companies give out "certificates" to people whose sites end up being so horribly filled with crap (and I'm not necessarily talking about the content) that I don't want to have anything to do with those companies.
What about universities? Would you trust them to teach you?
The "Internet Programming" course I follow teaches according to those standards, but not all universities are the same, of course.
Whether Phoenix has a bunch of letters after his name or not, I trust his judgement and experience... even through my limited contact. I think the respect he's earned from other Dinkers and his determination to constantly learn more is far more significant than what he has framed on his wall...
(Incidentally, I really don't know what qualifications he has)
(Incidentally, I really don't know what qualifications he has)
Personally, the rest of the mostly heated/silly argument aside, I think AJAX is great for certain things, like mail servers and a number of other applications.
However I would not design a website using AJAX at this stage anyway, as it is still newer technology with some flaws, many of which can be ironed out with clever scripting.
I am yet convinced there is any real reason to design a website in AJAX when XHTML, CSS, JS in places, etc are quite up to the task at this stage, without me having to worry about another so far more experimental technology.
It might one day be a more important technology that I might be more inclined to use outside of a few application scripting tasks, or a stepping stone towards an even better technology.
However I would not design a website using AJAX at this stage anyway, as it is still newer technology with some flaws, many of which can be ironed out with clever scripting.
I am yet convinced there is any real reason to design a website in AJAX when XHTML, CSS, JS in places, etc are quite up to the task at this stage, without me having to worry about another so far more experimental technology.
It might one day be a more important technology that I might be more inclined to use outside of a few application scripting tasks, or a stepping stone towards an even better technology.
Noone ever suggested doing a site in AJAX, just web applications.
Read the (=your) first post:
"Anyone planning on doing a website with AJAX? Or know of any good AJAX sites? Or any AJAX sites that are in development?"
It's even in the title.
Pwn
"Anyone planning on doing a website with AJAX? Or know of any good AJAX sites? Or any AJAX sites that are in development?"
It's even in the title.
Pwn
You misunderstood what I meant. I did not mean a site that used AJAX exclusively. I meant a site that used it in part. I know full very well that AJAX isn't the best for evry web based thing. As I've said several times now: I meant that AJAX is the best for making web applications.
Heres a shocking thought...if you meant web apps in AJAX, try not going on about AJAX sites in the first post, which is about all alot of people read, espeically with such a long thread!