I'm trying to find useful tutorials about how to create modern websites that loads content without refreshing the page.
I have tried all kinds of words in Google, but I don't get any useful hits. Perhaps it's because I'm not sure what I should be searching for.
Tips and links to tutorials would be appreciated!
Thanks!
tl;dr: Googling ajax website tutorial or jquery address tutorial is a good start.
As has been noted, the key here is AJAX.
AJAX alone, however, is not the answer.
It's pivotal to a non-page-reload site, but there are also a lot of other things to consider.
Luckily for us all, the Internet is great, and lots of developers have an open-source is awesome mindset.
Suffice to say, this type of site has been done before, and there are people out there who have made developing a site like this easier.
Ignoring the back-end & server-side setup, the way I would recommend starting a site like this is to use the following:
HTML5 BoilerPlate
jQuery
jQuery Address plugin.
Use the plugin from the start; from experience, it's difficult to implement it after you've completed the site.
You'll want use ajax. There are also ways to poll the server for updates as well. You can use a setInterval call to periodically retrieve a URL; but this is only required if you're polling. If you're doing this action based on a user event, you can just use that to trigger the retrieval/update. I'd suggest looking at jQuery, it'll make this kind stuff much easier.
jQuery Ajax would make it possible in a simpler way!
There are frameworks built exactly for this. One of today's hot ones is Meteor.js.
Read about it. Worst case, you'll get your googling keywords and find an alternative you like.
Related
I'm learning basic web dev and started with HTML, CSS, Bootstrap. Haven't touched PHP or anything server side yet.
What I've done so far is I've created a pretty basic registration form with 5 fields and what I'm trying to do is display the input of those fields in a table that I've created on another page. The submit button has the "method" and action. Now, I've Googled a ton to find some solutions and have gone through most of the questions of this site but I still can't find out to achieve what I'm trying to do without the use of PHP/JS.
So, is it even possible to read form data from another page like this without the use of JS/PHP? If so, how do I proceed and what needs to be done? I can post the source code but I don't think it's going to help since there isn't much there, everything else is working fine except for finding a solution to this.
Thank you.
You need a programming language.
If you want to do it entirely client-side, then that has to be JS.
If you want to do it server-side (which allows you to access the data and, optionally, make it available to other people, instead of limiting it to the user of the browser) then you can use any programming language at all (although JS and PHP are among the most common choices).
Since you are trying to create a registration page, you'll need to use server-side programming.
You necessarily need to use JavaScript / PHP.
Since you are just starting, I would highly recommend you to check out the W3Schools tutorials on HTML, CSS, JavaScript, PHP, Bootstrap and jQuery.
:)
So this is long gone but I was actually able to resolve my problem without using anything other than basic HTML , so here's how I did it for anyone else who's trying to find the answer to problem (probably not, you don't usually do this professionally and basically this was a challenge from a friend).
So, two things.
SessionStorage
LocalStorage
This is built-in to your browser and you can use it to achieve simple tasks by simply assigning values to it. They'll remain there and you can use however you want.
But, as the name implies, sessionstorage will only retain those values during the session (the time you have your browser open for) while localstorage can retain it indefinitely. Not sure if I can link other sites over here so just Google these terms to learn more and how to use them.
I am relatively new programmer, talking with a partner he told me, that before AJAX, he used a iframe to send data and change the content(obviously with help of JavaScript).
I understood that both are similar techniques, but i didn't find a article to describe their characteristic,
what are advantages of AJAX over Iframe ?
EDIT
i didnt find any explanation of the technique, but my partner told me he post the data trough a hidden iframe and submit the iframe, sound like just the iframe have to be refreshed, but i never did that
One advantage AJAX has is being able to read the state/status of the
request. You also have access to page headers, which you don't with
Iframes.
Ajax can handle multiple asynch requests. It's a little trickier
with Iframes as you need to create an Iframe per request (and keep
track of all of them to delete them later) instead of recycling the
same one.
Existing libraries are full of AJAX goodness and there is a larger community support base.
iframe
is a way show seperately two (or more) webpages in one
ajax
is a way to merge two (or more) webpages ( or new data ) into one
key advantages to Ajax I find are;
CSS will flow to the page called into it.
A way to retrieve data and update new information to the visitors without page refresh.
A fab mention to this site for it's clever use of Ajax.
A'Google instant' and suggestive searching is achieved via Ajax
Just my two cents:
I agree with Kris above that I wouldn't say they are comparable.
There's on use case that I find iFrames to be easier to work with over AJAX and that is if you need to submit a complicated form to another page but you don't need any response - the iframe route is by far the easiest to code.
Beyond that, AJAX, using a metaphor, acts a very knowledgeable go-between. It will handle multiple requests, the status of those requests, and hand back the data in the format you need.
I just wanted to add this because I didn't see in any of the answers.
The reasons to use Ajax are mostly about control, which you get a lot of. These reasons have been mentioned above.
One serious downside of Ajax, though, is that it is a JS fix. JavaScript is a great language, but people have been throwing it at every problem for a while now, and things which could be optimized if they were built in to the browsers, are now instead being done slowly (compared to compiled languages) with JS.
iFrames are a great example of this. They represent an incredibly common use case, wanting to include some html in some other html. Unfortunately, they aren't very amazing at it, often creating more headache than anything else.
If you want to include something and not have it mess with your site, nor your site to mess with it, iFrames are great. For the more common use case of including some random html in some other html, Ajax is better.
And here is the point I'm trying to make: this is dumb. There is no reason there shouldn't be something like an iFrame that acts more like Ajax. But, by jumping on board (as all of us did) with Ajax, we are now left with no choice.
The biggest reason this is a problem is that JS was never meant to be the absolute building blocks of the internet. Further, it's being used by pretty much every site around to violate user privacy. So, if you're looking for a good reason to use iFrames, this is mine:
It feels good to not need JS. If you can make your site improved by JS rather than dependent on it, that's a hard earned accomplishment, and the site will feel less "hacky" overall.
Anyways, that's just my input.
In my experience data loaded via AJAX is easier to manipulate versus data inside an iFrame. Also AJAX is really good for creating a better user experience. However I am not sure if I would necessarily put iFrames and AJAX in the same category because AJAX is asynchronous content and an iFrame is really just another page being loaded from outside of your site.
Also I could see iFraming creating SEO barriers and creating bad user experience. Honestly though if I had access to content I would prefer AJAX.
Using both libraries will make my life easier. But there seem to be some sort of a problem. Anyone knows the solution to this? Thank you.
I agree with Dimitar, use one framework where you can, it will make life much easier. Mootools has a raft of goodies that you can plug in and get going with. I suggest you have a look at the clientcide site http://www.clientcide.com/ and their download page where you will find Tips.Pointy which will do just what you want.
http://www.clientcide.com/js
So you know Mootools has done alot of work to allow it to run side by side with other frameworks but any plugins written for them have to use these new features for it to all play nice. All of clientcide's code has been re-written to allow it to use these new "play nice" features in Moo.
Enjoy
you can make a non-prototypial library co-exist with mootools or prototype (for example, jquery) but you can't easily get libraries that change / extend the native prototypes to co-exist with each other.
chances are you can get things going if you namespace but any code that you have that depends on the first framework that you load may stop working as expected (prototypes again)
as far as i remember, there were some efforts in the past to get this going - there was a project called SmoothGallery or something.
my advice is - find a tooltip plugin for mootools and drop prototip. forcing two frameworks on your users is a bad practice anyway
good luck :)
I imagine there are many of you out there who have developed an application online which automates a lot of processes and saves people at your company time and money.
The question is, what are your experiences with developing that application, having it all set in place, then "spicing" it up with some Ajax, so it makes for a better user experience?
Also, what libraries would you suggest using when adding Ajax to an already-developed web application?
Lastly, what are some common processes you see in web applications that Ajax does well with? For example, auto-populating the search box as you type.
My preferred way of building Ajax-enabled applications is to build it the old-fashioned way where every button, link, etc. posts to the server, and then hijack all those button, link, etc. clicks to the Ajax functionality.
This ensures that my app is down-browser compatible, which is good.
It doesn't really matter which you use, unless you're trying to do something very specialized.
Here's a good list: http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/.
Yes, auto-completers are a pretty handy implementation of Ajax. It's also quite useful for data-intensive activities like populating drill-down data.
A lot of what you can do with these libraries isn't Ajax-specific, there is a lot of UI interaction that can benefit the user as well. You can do things like slideshows and lightboxes quite easily with many of these libraries.
Pick the one that you're comfortable with. The syntax they all use is a little different. Give a few a spin and try to build simple examples. Stick with the one you like.
Using ASP.NET Ajax to wrap a few chunks of code is an easy way to get going. But personally I prefer to use jQuery. You can easily add some simple Ajax calls with it to make the UI more responsive without the ASP.NET Ajax overhead.
If you are using ASP.NET to write your applications, adding AJAX using ASP.NET AJAX is very straightforward and in many places will not require you to change any code at all except add two controls to the pages you want to modify.
This works using partial page loads. The controls you have to add (off the top off my head) are called something like
<asp:ScriptManager
and
<asp:UpdatePanel
The biggest thing I use for AJAX is lists and search forms. Why? Because the overhead of loading an entire page when you are going though a list of, let's say, 200 records, it will get frustrating for a user to go though everything. However, it is important that if you click on a link in the page and then hit the back button or use a link at the top to return to the same page you were on.
For search forms, as you fill out the form I use AJAX queries to return the first few results and a number indicating how many records that were returned.
For AJAX frameworks, I use mootools. http://www.mootools.net.
Please ignore if not using ASP.NET. Your platform wasn't clear from your question.
Depending on when you created your web application, your web config file may need some tweaks to use ASP.NET Ajax. The easiest way to see is to create a new web site with the ASP.NET Ajax template and compare the web config, copying over configuration items as needed to bring the old one up to date.
If "spicing it up" is all you're after then develop the fully functional app without AJAX first. From here you can unobtrusively add AJAX functionality and ensure that the app degrades well for non JavaScript-enabled browsers.
I've started using jQuery for JavaScript on my site. It takes away all the worry of cross-browser JavaScript differences - things like class and classname, and getElementById. It also includes some very handy and simple functionality for AJAX postbacks. It's very easy to learn and extremely lightweight when used well.
I've seen some good use of AJAX right here on Stack Overflow, things like the tag selector and the question lookup when you type a question title. I think these simple things work best; we're just adding to the user experience with small additions to functionality that are intuitive, we're not flooding the screen with drag/drop handles etc.
I would differ from the first poster. Adding Ajax isn't always as easy as 1,2,3. It really depends on what you are after.
Adding things such as a colour animation can be made fairly easy, but if you are after things such as auto populating a text box, this requires extra code. It's not as easy as adding just something client side. You would also need to add in server-side support to fetch the partial query results.
Going beyond that, it can become even more complex keeping your client-side script in sync with server-side support.
But with the spirit of simplicity in mind there are libraries you can use to 'spice' up a website with animations and other eyecandy that can be implemented fairly easily which have been mentioned already.
I've often had to Ajax-enable an old-fashioned ASP.NET 2.0 sites. The easiest way I've found to do that is to create a new Ajax-enabled site and copy and paste certain sections of the web.config into your old project's web.config.
Just compare the two and see what's missing in your old one. You'll obviously also need to add references to AjaxExtensions and AjaxControlToolkit.
Although I've done programming, I'm not a programmer. I've recently agreed to coordinate getting a Website up for a club. The resources are--me, who has done Web content maintenance (putting content into HTML and ColdFusion templates via a gatekeeper to the site itself; doing simple HTML and XML coding); a serious Web developer who does database programming, ColdFusion, etc., and talks way over the heads of the rest of us; two designers who use Dreamweaver; the guy who created the original (and now badly broken) site in Front Page and wants to use Expression Web; and assorted other club members who are even less technically inclined.
What we need up first is some text and graphics (a gorgeous design has been created in Dreamweaver), some links (including to existing PDF newsletters for download), and maybe hooking up an existing Blogspot blog. Later (or earlier if it's not hard), we may add mouseover menus to the links, a gallery, a calendar, a few Mapquest hotlinks, and so on.
My question--First, is there any real problem with sticking with HTML and jpegs for the initial site? Second, for the "later" part of the site development, what's the simplest we can go with? Third, are there costs in doing this the simple way that will make us regret it down the road? Also, is there a good site/resource where I can learn more about this from a newbie perspective?
If you don't require any dynamic content, heck, if you don't plan on editing the content more than once a week, I'd say stick to basic HTML.
Later, you'd probably want a basic, no-fuss and easily installable CMS. The brand really depends on the platform (most likely PHP/Rails/ASP), but most of them can be found by typing " CMS" into Google. Try prefixing it with "free" or "open source" if you want.
I'm pretty sure you can do all this for absolutely free. Most PHP and Ruby CMS's are free and web hosting is free/extremely cheap if you're not demanding.
And last/best tip: Find someone who has done this before, preferably more than once. He'll probably set you up so you never have to look at anything more complicated than a WYSIWYG editor.
Plain old HTML is fine, just as long as you don't use tags like blink and marquee.
I personally love tools like CityDesk.
And I'm not just plugging Joel. (There are others out there in this class I'm sure.) The point is they make making a static website very easy:
The structure is just a filesystem structure
pages have templates to consolidate formatting
all resources are contained in one file
easy and fast Preview and Publish functions
For a dynamic collaborative site, I would just install one of many open source CMSs available on shared hosting sites.
If you're familiar with html/javascript basics I'd look into a CMS - wordpress, drupal, joomla, nuke, etc. All of these are free. Very often your web hosting company will install one of these by default which takes all of the hard part out of your hands. Next is just learning to customize the system and there's tons of docs out there for any of those systems.
All that being said there is noting wrong with good old fashioned html.
In addition to some of the great content management systems already mentioned, consider cms made simple.
It makes it very easy to turn a static site into a content managed site (which sounds like exactly what you might need to do in the future), and the admin area is very easy to use. Our clients have found it much simpler to use than the likes of Joomla.
It's also free and open source.
Good luck!
There's no reason to not go with plain old HTML and JPGs if you don't know any server side scripting languages. Also, once you want to get more advanced, most cheap hosting services have tools that can be installed with one click, and provide things like blogs, photo galleries, bulletin boards (PHPBB), and even content management tools like Joomla.
I had the same problem myself, I was just looking for something really easy to smash together a website quickly. First I went with just plain old HTML, but then I realised a simple CMS would be better.
I went for Wordpress. Wordpress is mostly known as a blogging platform, but in my opinion it is really great as a deadly simple CMS as well.
why not simply use Google pages?
Here is an example of a website I did, takes about 2 hours, easy to maintain (not that I do (-: ) and FREE.
I think that suggesting you mess with HTML for what you need is crazy!
Plain HTML is great, gives you the most control. If you want to make updating a bit easier though, you could use SSI. Most servers have this enabled. It basically let's you attach one file to many pages.
For example, you could have your menu in navigation.html and every page would include this file. That way you wouldn't have to update this one file on every page each time you need to update.
<!--#include virtual="navigation.html" -->
I agree with the other commenters that a CMS might be useful to you, however as I see it, probably a solution like Webby might do it for you. It generates plain HTML pages based on Templates. Think about it as a "webpage preprocessor" which outputs plain HTML files. It has most of the advantages of using a server-based CMS, but without a lot of load on the server, and making it easy for you to change stuff on any of the templates you might use.
It's fine
Rails (or purchase / use a CMS)
Not unless you start becoming crazy-popular
It really depends on what you go with for 2. Rails has a plethora of tutorials on the net and any product you go with will have its own community etc.
To be perfectly honest though, if the dynamic part is someone elses blog and you move the gallery out into flikr you may find that you can actually live with large parts of it being static HTML for a very long time.
If a to Implement a website With User Profiles/Logins, Extensions, Gallery's etc s a Newbi then a CMS like Joomla, Etc are good , but Else if you presently have only Static Content then Its good to go with Good Old HTML, About JPEG , I though Presently Its better to use PNG or GIF as its Less Bulky.
Also About you Query About Shifting to Server Scripts , When you have Database Driven Material or When you have Other Things that Require Advanced Prog Languages , Just use PHP Scripts inside PHP , and Rename teh File as a PHP, Thats IT, No Loss to you HTML Data.....
Do Go Ahead and Launch you Site ......
Dude, you're talking about HTML, obviously you'll be styling your content with CSS. Wait till you run into IE issues and god forbid your client wants ie6 compatibility.
Go with the HTML for now, I'm sure you guys will hack it through. Our prayers are with you.
Personally, I'd never use JPEG images on a website, mainly because of three reasons:
JPEGs often contains artifacts.
Quality is often proportional
with filesize.
Does not support
alpha transparency.
That said, I'd recommend you to use PNGs for images since it's lossless and a 24-bit palette (meaning full colors + alpha transparency). The only quirk is that IE6 and below does not support native alpha for PNGs, however this could be resolved by running a javascript which would fix this issue.
As for designing a website, there's both pros and cons for this. I suggest you read through:
37 Signal's Why We Skip Photoshop
Jeff Croft's Why We Don't Skip Photoshop
As for newbie resources, I'd recommend you flip through the pages at W3 Schools.