This blog entry started out as a reply to comments on my previous blog about Web 2.0 and the abuse of AJAX. It turned into another mini-rant that was a little too lengthy for a comment, so here we are.
I think the thing that irritates the most is that “Ajax” is a term than captures most ‘new’ DHTML methods.
Ever since the iFrame we’ve been able to send POST data quietly back to our scripts and read the results for javascript to add to the DOM. In fact, I wrote a prototype spellchecker (IPS SpellWell) years ago that used an iFrame to send the raw data back to the spell checker script which returned the corrected version.
Certainly, using XMLHttpRequest is a much neater solution that doesn’t require ‘hacky’ methods such as the iframe – but that’s all it is – a neater DOM method.
Let’s face it – nearly all the ‘flashy’ work that makes “AJAX” seem so cool is nothing but bog-standard JS work that’s been done before.
Take IPB’s “edit topic title in place” feature: (For those that don’t know, IPB 2.1+ allows one to click and hold the topic title in a forum listing which turns it into a text input box. On clicking away from the text box or hitting enter, it’ll turn back into a normal topic title using the newly edited text). The actual ‘whoo’ factor comes from simply taking a span of text and making it a CSS styled text input box. The “AJAX” part is totally invisible.
Moving on, it seems that someone else has a great idea: Wouldn’t it be cool if we could use “AJAX” methods but using an iframe! I give it a week before someone has dubbed it “AJAF” (Asynchronous Javascript And iFrames).
I read the term “mashup” the other day. This is another Web 2.0 buzzword that encapsulates the result of taking two “Web 2.0″ APIs and creating a new product (for example, taking the Google Maps API and using it with the Flickr API to render a map with the Flickr user’s location pinned on it). It’s another buzzword that makes me want to cry. Whenever I read it or hear it, it strikes me as something a terminally untrendy person would say at a party to appear trendy. “Oh yeah, I saw a wicked mashup the other day online”.
Seriously. Enough. Please.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
Sorry to burst your bubble there Matt, but hidden iframes instead of AJAX has been used ever since AJAX became somewhat standard. What i usually do when i init my ajax object is i have a try catch statement that goes through all the ajax objects for ActiveX and the mozilla based object. If it still cant create a xmlHttp object then i init my iframe backup object as the XML object. My iframe object has the exact same function and method names as any XmlHttpRequest so there is full compatability. Try giving it a shot.
Yeah.. that’s exactly my point.
You’re having to fall back on the iframes method (Google Suggest does this) incase the user’s browser doesn’t support XMLHttpRequest – so ultimately your’e wasting your time by even bothering with the AJAX method aren’t you?
I mean, if the iframe version works everywhere and is identical in appearance with the AJAX version, then what is the point?
your point does have merit, but when it comes to opening physical XML documents (which is actually how AJAX started), this becomes a big problem, youd have to have a server side script (id probably use php becuase it comes with EXPAT) which parses what part of the XML document you want. As you may know, alot of web programmers (including myself) like to open XML asynch with the page and snag elements using AJAX and the responseXML method; this becomes a problem with iframes.
Right…
But how many “AJAX” web-apps actually open XML files?
Matt, you’re right, but I think what most people generally feel is that AJAX is an “official” or proper way to send raw data in realtime… Of course, this has always been possible using I-frames, but that was as you said – a “hack”.. And for one, the word hack itself has a negative connotation. But generally I think we should be embracing the fact that realtime raw data transmission is finally supported across all popular browsers with the help of a proper protocol (XMLHTTP), and not as a “hack” (iframes).
Personally, the issue doesn’t really bother me.. People have always been using technologies wrongly. Maybe AJAX or “Web 2.0″ isn’t that revolutionary, but the idea of on-the-fly communication to and from a remote server is certainly an intriguing and inspiring one, even if this sort have thing has been do-able by alternate means before.
Horray, another blog I read is complaining about new buzzwords (which are not evil). Whining about buzzwords is just another bandwagon, one I’m sad to see you jump on.
“Seriously. Enough. Please.”
o_O
Having a bad day Chris? This is a personal website where I share my thoughts – my thoughts are that I’m sick of people clamouring to create new buzzwords that mean nothing. It’s not a bandwagon – it’s the way I feel.
Another excellent post.
A mental note that AJAX became popular far before you implimented XMLHttpRequest into your topic title editing feature.
Its amazing how the mind works, when i was coming up with my iframe framework i thought it was utterly hopeless to attempt to create a responseXML. Well right after posting i realized that if i opened the actual document in a hidden iframe, and then used document.frames[] to snag the content; i could use the DOM element parsing and tree-nodes to get the values of each tag. So i guess the question is, why use AJAX?.. even im not sure how to answer that one
Interestingly enough, the term “AJAX” wasn’t that widespread when I added the topic title stuff into IPB which is why the JS library is called “xmlhttprequest.js” ^_^
Good post, it does get annoying.
I guess you didn’t know about the term AJAX whenever you added that, but I’ve been a fan of 37signals so of course I know about the most annoying buzzwords.
In essence, it’s not the fact that someone has taken a concept / idea / technology and encapsulated it in an exciting adjective, that’s something that’s happened for many years – especially in the print and design trade that I used to be in.
No, it’s the general confusion attached to them. As they mean nothing tangible, the average consumer has no idea what the buzzword means or involves but just learns that it’s “cool” and a “must-have”.
Consequentially, web developers get bombarded with questions such as “Is your product Web 2.0 compatible?” and “Have you thought of using AJAX?” (these are both common requests that we get for IPB).
Infamously, a reporter was speaking to the developer of one of the leading “Web 2.0″ sites (I think it was Flickr) and asked “How did you manage to build a Web 2.0 application in a Web 1.0 world?” to which he replied “That’s the most ridiculous question I’ve ever heard”.
i know how you feel man, sometimes i think the people i design/program for dont even know what AJAX is. A long story short: i was creating a AJAX/php mail interface for a client which 11 AJAX features that i slavcd over for weeks (i wont go into details). Anyway, i put in this nifty catagory and tab reodering which uses a simple IE opacity filter or mozilla opacity filter to shadow the floating tab. You can move it around within the list, you can reorder tabs and everything…took me about 30 minutes to make. After i got paid and installed the web application on his server, the first thing he said was “wow, nifty AJAX re-ordering”. Now if he would have commented on the RTE editor or the automatic mail update aswell i would have been fine, but that was the ONLY thing he commented on. I felt like punching someone
Nifty comment – the amount of times i spelt commented as conemted = 15 times
Sorry for double posting and all, i just thought id make it clear that the re-ordering thing was cookie based — which is why i got so mad.
I think i wont use AJAX anymore, people seem to be more enticed by moving things around the screen then not having to reload the screen.
uggghhh
I was looking at the website of a self-proclaimed ‘Web 2.0′ application the other day and it actually listed as one of its features: “Buzzword compliant”. How daft.
Using the ‘buzzword technologies’ is fine, but surely you should be marketing a product based on the *features* it has, not the method you’ve used to implement those features. Let’s face it, AJAX is just a method, nothing else.
Jeremy Keith sums up my opinions on the web 2.0, et al, backlashing.
http://adactio.com/journal/display.php/20060118145919.xml
Matt, I thought this “Workshop” might interest, or irritate, you: http://www.carsonworkshops.com/dev/fuchs/26JAN2006.html
And just a side note, that’s $500 to just join the workshop. I’m completely blown away.
Don,
There’s a full page advert in this month’s “.Net” magazine for that Carson “Web 2.0″ workshop – and it’s even advertised on the magazine’s index page.
That’s exactly the obfuscation that I’m ranting about. Don’t know what “Web 2.0″ means? Pay $500 and we’ll tell you.
This happened before with the internet in the late 90s – and it didn’t end well then.
Chris,
This blog isn’t trying to be trendy and I’m not joining any band-wagon.
As a web developer of a fairly large project, I get bombarded with feature requests and the “Web 2.0″ obfuscation has seen many odd feature requests. I chose to vent on my own blog about it.
Futhermore, my “attack” is only at the pervasive use of such buzzwords, not the underlying concepts and technologies.
Buzzwords are usually invented by people that just don’t get the nature of the intarwebs, and are still trying to make sure they have that Myspace vote. ‘Ajax’, ‘Podcasting’, ‘blogosphere’, etc should be banned from the English language forever
Although, Ajax wouldn’t appeal to the Myspace crowd, unless it somehow helped them achieve that perfect distressed bathroom mirror picture.
Oh the irony.
Also, looks like next months .net magazine (March) is “All about Ajax”