New Site Logo Design

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeropsi

I am interested in your reasons for why you dislike AJAX?

---

I don't dislike "AJAX", though I do dislike the name. The problem with it is usage, which is all too frequently atrocious. Because AJAX is a current buzzword in Web development, there seems to be this imperative to use it for any purpose, rather than because there's any tangible benefit. There are also cases where it's used in preference to any equal and better-supported approach. For instance, using AJAX instead of frames, or simply reloading the document. Both are almost always a better option (despite the problems with frames), yet AJAX is used instead because "it's cool".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeropsi

... I had always assocaited a XHTML site as a site that follows a XML heirarchy and is controlled and styled through a CSS sheet.

---

What is "a XML heirarchy"? That's not a phrase that really means anything. If I had to guess, I'd say that you're referring to XML well-formedness requirements. However, there's nothing stopping an author from writing decent HTML (though a look at much of the Web might suggest otherwise).

As for using style sheets, any document written in the past several years should be using CSS to suggest presentation. There's no special relationship to XHTML at all.

Quote:

---

Basically I have designed a number of user interfaces that interact with my databases and return information back to the users web browser.

---

So, it's a website, then? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

My idea with incorporating AJAX was to reduce the number of page reloads and speed-up the content delivery.

---

The overhead from reloading a document is minimal. A few kilobytes in a well-authored document. As you would need to provide a script-less fall back anyway, the effort seems wasted.

Using "AJAX" entails waiting for a complete response before rendering begins. HTML can be rendered incrementally. The total number of bytes may be increased, but it's perceptually faster. Loading content via "AJAX" also disables several interface features, such as the Back button and the ability to bookmark content. It's not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Mike

This has turned into quite the conversation over my logo. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwinter

I don't dislike "AJAX", though I do dislike the name. The problem with it is usage, which is all too frequently atrocious. Because AJAX is a current buzzword in Web development, there seems to be this imperative to use it for any purpose, rather than because there's any tangible benefit. There are also cases where it's used in preference to any equal and better-supported approach. For instance, using AJAX instead of frames, or simply reloading the document. Both are almost always a better option (despite the problems with frames), yet AJAX is used instead because "it's cool".

---

Well, since I do alot of my designing and developing for myself I am always pushing myself to learn new thing, new methods, so I can showcase them in a portfolio if I would ever need to find a new line of work. So as much of a "buzzword" AJAX is to you, I can't imagine how it flies around the water coolers at Media Agencies that design websites for clients. It's a much better card in my hand, than shuffled back in the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwinter

What is "a XML heirarchy"? That's not a phrase that really means anything. If I had to guess, I'd say that you're referring to XML well-formedness requirements. However, there's nothing stopping an author from writing decent HTML (though a look at much of the Web might suggest otherwise).

---

Well, basically the hierarchy just refer to the flow of the code.

XML example:

Code:

---

<results>
    <race value="1">
        <winner>Barbosa</winner>
        <place>Lucky Foot</place>
        <show>Tuscany Gold</show>
        <payout>15:1</payout>
    </race>
    <race value="2">
        <winner>Red Skies</winner>
        <place>Admiral Benson</place>
        <show>Horse Play</show>
        <payout>5:3</payout>
    </race>
</results>

---

XHTML code:

Code:

---

<div id="wrapper">
    <div id="header">
        <div id="logo"></div>
        <div id="banner">
    </div>
    <div id="navigation">
        <div id="menu"></div>
    </div>
    <div id="footer"></div>
</div>

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwinter

As for using style sheets, any document written in the past several years should be using CSS to suggest presentation. There's no special relationship to XHTML at all.

---

Like I said, it was just a misclassification on my part, I had just always used the two interchangeably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwinter

So, it's a website, then? :rolleyes:

---

I would like to think it's alot more than "just a website". At least in my example. I have developed an interesting application that allows users to fictitiously purchase $10,000 worth of real world stocks at real world price and track their progress over a period of time, and compete with others on the site, or within their set-up groups to see how can accumulate the most cash by the end of each period. Call me crazy, but that is not "just a website."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mwinter

The overhead from reloading a document is minimal. A few kilobytes in a well-authored document. As you would need to provide a script-less fall back anyway, the effort seems wasted.

Using "AJAX" entails waiting for a complete response before rendering begins. HTML can be rendered incrementally. The total number of bytes may be increased, but it's perceptually faster. Loading content via "AJAX" also disables several interface features, such as the Back button and the ability to bookmark content. It's not a worthwhile trade-off, in my opinion.

Mike

---

As mentioned above, my example may be a bit more adverse than the next, since I am trying to create an environment that duplicates "streaming" quotes that are being syndicated from a third-party, so in my humble attempt to provide rapid information, this was the method I decided to move forward with.