Hashbang URLs are a recommended practice
Why not AJAX'ify entire websites?
Is there a solid rationale for why websites shouldn't be developed with Ajax features that load large chunks of each part (assuming there are elements like headers, navigation, etc that stay the same)?
Certainly it would be less resource intensive as the server would not have to provide content to be displayed on every page, which benefits both the host and the end user.
Answer the question taking into account:
When I ask, I'm talking about new websites that might be more likely to implement this behavior from the start, so it's not technically expensive - we're not going back to a finished product to implement it.
When Google came out with their crawlable Ajax proposal, it was a really bad idea. For an interesting read.
- AJAX allows you to share a common "base page" and only load the content areas, which can reduce load time for users as much of the page is already loaded.
- Can allow a feast for the eyes, e.g. B. showing and hiding the content area.
- Doesn't play well when the page is downloading.
- Can play around with devices with disabilities.
- Much more work (does that really need to be said?).
All in all I would say it's up to you, it would probably work pretty well, and for the vast majority of users they will likely see the site as intended, but personally I would say don't bother as it's not worth it make such a marginal improvement in file size.
Take a look at http://gawker.com/ - this page loads almost completely afterwards. You use "Hashbangs" () to determine which page of content to load. The main navigation remains static.
At http://mtrpcic.net/2011/02/fragment-uris-theyre-not-as-bad-as-you-think-really/ you can find a short tutorial on the concept used by Gawker.
After all, probably the biggest argument against them is that a user can be impatient waiting for a page to load and then having to wait for a page to load. In my opinion, the best practice is to load the main website, navigation, and primary content in one go (upon request) and save the AJAX for the non-essential ancillary costs. This works with the idea of progressive improvement and mixes the best of both approaches.
Because it probably just isn't necessary.
For example, when Twitter received the latest redesign, they assumed it wasn't just a webpage (page) but an application, and the whole thing is heavily Ajax-based, although most of what it can does is deal with regular page requests become. One of the biggest problems, which is even less of a problem now, is getting there and being greeted with a blank page because something went wrong in Ajax.
In practice, building a "fully AJAX" website is a lot of work, especially for large websites that are very complicated. Some websites that try to do this are Google and Facebook, but even they don't do it perfectly.
Yes, it should be, but it should be the other way around.
The general parts of the page should be sent over HTTP. Then a small Ajax control (or better yet, websockets) loads the dynamic content asynchronously.
So you need the normal full HTTP route and then a websockets route. This will require code duplication unless you are using a tool like node.js.
Most people "think" that it's just not worth the extra effort. And sometimes it isn't.
Bad for accessibility
Screen readers and other assistive technologies are often affected by dynamic DOM changes. They process and read the page in a linear fashion, and changing the contents of the page after it loads may not be handled correctly.
There may be techniques to work around this, but I haven't looked into them too thoroughly.
Maintaining this type of website can be difficult. For example, if you've created a new layout and changed the ID of the content area that you've replaced with your AJAX links, it can damage your navigation scheme in quite confusing ways.
This type of AJAX behavior would also make any traffic analysis you would be difficult to perform. Google Analytics would not properly register these AJAX loads without a manual call from.
As you make your site more complex, it also raises the bar for new developers. Anyone who works on the site probably needs to be made aware of how this behavior affects page loading.
Possible: Slower loading of the page on the first visit
Each subsequent link that is clicked is faster, but getting the first page a user visited would actually take longer than a static version.
The reason I identified this as a possible problem is that you can always send the first page statically (since you already have the static version as a fallback) and then use AJAX for the links below.
For what it's worth, this doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me - especially for bandwidth-sensitive applications like mobile sites. However, you would have to carefully weigh the cons to make sure it is worth it in your case.
Having Ajax elements on a page is fine if you have a small user base but have more traffic. You want to use a more static approach to reduce resource abuse.
Example: Suppose you have 200 people trying to access a page every second. You have about 7 database queries for your Ajax calls. That's 1400 database hits per second that can block a website.
A website that needs to be designed for high traffic should have static, outward-facing pages so that content can be displayed statically. It does this by using a server-side script that runs every second to recreate the static page that is fetched for the end user. In this way, you have reduced your load from 1400 database calls per second to 7.
It's an SOA approach to building websites.
- What's your favorite thing about the 727
- What are the benefits of dermarolling
- Is it worth getting the CAPM
- What is the need for Express JS
- Will Bitcoin be legal in India in 2020
- Protestants should take first communion
- Why does the snow fall so slowly
- What are the main steps of protein synthesis
- Why is my insect bite getting bigger
- Is the KTM Duke 200 worth buying
- Is SRM a good university for CSE
- Statement doors are worth it
- Would you invest in marijuana now
- What is predictive merchandising
- What do you think of Emir Radoncic
- Should aspiring entrepreneurs go to college
- Where will Groupon be in 2014
- Are brain training games bogus advertisements
- Is it healthy to add sugar to tea?
- Is a bloody steak healthy?
- Can anything technically be considered a business?
- Why cannot natural disasters be predicted
- Remain anesthetists during the operation
- What is a pediment in geology