5 ms·
Main difference: it does not degrade gracefully. It just doesn't work without JavaScript activated.
by serichsen 16y ago
Main difference: it does not degrade gracefully. It just doesn't work without JavaScript activated.
- jules 16y agoBut it is a lot more responsive. Is there a way to make it degrade gracefully? The problem I see is that you can't have the JS and non-JS parts have the same URLs. The JS part will have urls like thesite.com/#question123, whereas the non-JS site will have urls like thesite.com/question123. So now you have two urls for each page, giving problems with search engines (and I think search engines will consider thesite.com/#x the same url as thesite.com/#y, and only load one of them).
- mythz 16y agoYeah if it were a real app I would definitely go through the effort of having it degrade gracefully and crawlable. Although for those interested Google has a proposal for crawling Ajax sites: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposal-for-making-ajax-crawlable.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposal-...
- numix 16y agoYou could use the new pushState() to change the url (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Manipulating_the_browser_history https://developer.mozilla.org/en/DOM/Manipulating_the_browse...). A good example is Github's repo browser.
- mythz 16y agopushState() / twitter-like Ajax REST-ful Url's now added!
- mythz 16y agoDo you know many other jQuery only websites that do?
- euroclydon 16y agoWon't that nearly eliminate search engine scans?
- angrycoder 16y agoThat is a common problem with most ajax heavy sites. The workaroud is to generate a sitemap.xml for all your ajax content.
- markelliot 16y agoHave you tried using StackOverflow without JavaScript enabled? I wouldn't call its degredation graceful, maybe more graceful than this..
- gnaritas 16y ago> Main difference: it does not degrade gracefully. Who cares, really? The percentage of people who purposefully break their browsers isn't worth catering to.
- daleharvey 16y agofully agreed, its very similiar to the days when people used to complain about not being able to login to sites when they disabled their cookies.
- mscarborough 16y ago> Who cares, really? The percentage of people who purposefully break their browsers isn't worth catering to. Accessibility. Is there really any reason why a questions/answer site with voting can't provide noscript tags? Refactoring ours to deal with that, so not trying to throw stones. EDIT: I understand mythz's comment about being a play project. i'm just responding to the 'why break your browser' sentiment.
- mythz 16y agoIt's an ajax site that uses static html/js for speed, i.e. there are no .aspx .jsp pages to generate dynamic html on the server. If this were a real app there would be.
- tomh- 16y agoWhy would you provide an implementation with noscript tags? only 0.01% of your users will probably be affected. These are the users who never click or view ads anyway, why spent time for them while you could implement more important features?
- DenisM 16y ago>Is there really any reason why a questions/answer site with voting can't provide noscript tags? Because making two versions of the site is twice as much work?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- AgentConundrum 16y agoI'm just going to assume you've never tried to use StackOverflow without having JavaScript enabled.
- serichsen 16y agoI do have. I can read everything, and I can both post and edit questions and answers. That is a huge difference from random leftovers.