Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ajax and the Ken Burns Effect

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the fun-with-code dept.

239

An anonymous reader writes "IBM DeveloperWorks has an interesting project posted that shows how to design a client-side slide show using the 'Ken Burns Effect.' From the article: 'If the Web 2.0 revolution has one buzzword, it's Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (Ajax). [...] Here, you discover how to build XML data sources for Ajax, request XML data from the client, and then dynamically create and animate HTML elements with that XML.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181390)

This is a perfect example of why I think the Mac community has been compromised by using Office X, and other products from Microsoft's Mac Business Unit. As I have mentioned here before, I do not trust PC-type people. They do not think like us. They are not like us. They are as close to "alien life forms" as we can get without having to leave this planet.

Seriously, they do not share our values. They hate that we have good taste. They like to keep their windows maximized and their ligatures uncombined. They think gray is a color. Hell, most of them are perfect little squares in perfectly square holes and if you go to PC strongholds like Staten Island you'll see most of the media they consume is produced by Mac users, as the Windows demographic is incapable of creativity in music, the arts, interior design, etc.

They are backwards. They live in the 1980s. They've contributed nothing meaningful to humanity for decades and decades. While we different thinkers are out writing AppleScripts, making HyperCard stacks, mixing in Logic Pro, editing collaboratively in SubEthaEdit, proofing rainbow banners in Illustrator, creating wealth through a variety of postmodern/postindustrial models and winning Nobels and Pulitzers and Grammys and Tonys and Oscars and Pritzkers along the way, the PC users are sitting on their asses downloading the fruits of our labor (how else do you explain so many being able to reference Futurama, bash the New Yorker, etc.?) The only thing they have in their favor is old, fat, white-bread bankrolls accumulated on slavery and imperialism and, personally, I wish their inherited wealth would run dry. Sure, we'd have a hell of a headache funding our next indie production, but so would the whole world, and when faced with adversity the ingenuity of Mac users truly comes to the fore.

Anyway, back on point. Why don't I trust the Mac Business Unit?

Because to have PC-type people writing software to help us finance our projects, communicate with our studios, write our manifestoes and organize our political protests, is a disaster waiting to happen.

Whereas we may allow products from other dull, dogma-bound companies into our /Applications folder, none of them pledge allegiance to a corporate master churning out horrifying simulacra of Mac users' innovations. On top of that, given that they are run by Windows users, how easy would it be for one of them to allow a "friend" to dummy up a Trojan, have another "friend" port it to the Mac, and then allow another "friend" to unleash a remote controlled hell on our private Bonjour-configured LANs? After all, they are "blood", right?

Which leads me to how some in our own community are encouraging PC-type people to switch to the Mac.

If you go back and do some checking of stories, you will see that in most cases where lifelong Windows users suddenly buy Macs, or people who are Linux to the core suddenly pirate Intel OS X from the internet, it is almost all done in cahoots with another recent switcher (read: poseur) on the "inside" or one that "knows" someone on the inside.

So if we have these so-called "switchers" from Linux and Windows in the Mac community, facilitating crass, classless ass-pickery on our platform by encouraging more PC-type people to switch, just how far a stretch is it to say the PC users in charge of the MBU won't do the same when it comes to our applications? HMMMMM?!?!?!

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (0, Flamebait)

ECXStar (533351) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181418)

And why did this article fall into the PC vs MAC thing for you??? I don't see as that and I AM a Mac user after 22+ years of PC's. They are both valid platforms.

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181433)

...and I AM a Mac user after 22+ years of PC's.
switcher \'swi`ch &r\, n.
A person who thinks that they are a Mac user but are really just trying to be. The mistake they make is to try to become a Mac user, when real Mac users are all about not trying to be anything and following your own rules. There is no fashion code to being a Mac user. There are no rules as to what applications you have to run.

Recent converts like you are ruining the old school Mac community because you are posers. Apple releases one OS that popularizes Fitts' law and the Genie effect, and suddenly people assume being a Mac user is all about owning a Mac. But a real Mac user is born, not made. You "switchers" are misrepresenting yourselves and the Mac platform. You're giving people the wrong idea of what Macintosh is.

switcher: shops at hot topic, thinks Firefox is a good Mac app, waiting for OS X port of PayrollPro 2000, follows any hint of a fashion trend (instead of setting them!), wouldn't know Clarus from Carl Sagan.

real Mac user: someone true to who they are, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules and they have no respect for the status quo. The ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world.

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181448)

This is the worst copy-and-paste troll yet. Mac users, rebels indeed.

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181462)

A guy walks up to me and asks, "What's Macintosh?" I show him my Quadra 840av and say "That's Macintosh." So he runs out, he buys a shiny new Mac mini, and he comes back and says "That's Macintosh?" and I say "No, that's trendy!"

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181729)

Macs have always been trendy. It's just that what was trendy 20 years ago isn't what is trendy now--that's why it's called trendy. Want to be rebellious? Come over to the Linux side.

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (1)

iMac Were (911261) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181602)

But a real Mac user is born, not made.
Yes, there's certainly some evidence that it's genetic [skeptictank.org] .

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181484)

Why are you biting on an obvious copy and paste troll?

Re:Microsoft's MBU: The Mac's Fifth Column (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181873)

I can tell some stuff about you.

-your film didn't get into Sundance. Or Cannes. Or ResFest. Or the fucking Two Boots weekend Short Series. The tough part about it is that your film probably isn't that bad. It's probably very smart, except for the disdain you have for the very audience that has to judge your film, and view your film, and LIKE YOUR FILM. Your problem now is the problem you've always had. You don't just need to be different, you NEED EVERYONE TO KNOW YOUR ARE. And that's why you're a luser.

-you got beat up in high school. You lost your virginity to a hooker, and you came quickly, trying to please her sexually. Oh yeah, and you ate her pussy.

-you do some really progressive music that cycles on long timelines like every hour or so. It's probably really cool if I had a 300 year lifespan and thus a different sense of time perspective, but I don't - so that makes it lame. And again, that makes you lame, because your "genius" exists in a vacuum, completely distinct from reality for the majority of people other than you.

-you're not as smart or ingenius as you think you are.

-Smart Windows users treat computers as the things they are: imminently replaceable commoditized items. It's a tool. Windows users are not tool fuckers. Idiots pay double the price for REDUCED FUNCTIONALITY. Yessir, that means you. I can make movies, music, code, etc, on windows machines - and I can run a small cluster at the cost of one powerbook. And I don't have to dick around with Linsux for hours to get shit done. Nor do I pay Jobs a ridiculous tax just so I can suck his dong. Your 4+ grand can get me 4 notebooks and peripherals - and some cash left over to buy your girlfriend drinks at the bar while you lament your artistic struggles. LOL

Tough break, buddy. Your girlfriend is kinda hot though... and the things she does after a couple of drinks. LOL

First Post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181391)

First post :)

Re:First Post (5, Funny)

alanwj (242317) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181503)

First post :)

This is poor advice. First you GET. Did you even look at the article?

Alan

Re:First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181718)

Ha. Thanks for a good laugh.

This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (5, Informative)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181392)

Ken Burns effect from wikipedia:

"In his documentaries, Burns often gives life to still photographs by slowly zooming-in on subjects of interest and panning from one subject to another. For example, in a photograph of a baseball team, he might slowly pan across the faces of the players and come to a rest on the player the narrator is discussing. ... This technique came to be known as the Ken Burns Effect, even though he did not originate the technique, and has become a staple of documentaries, slide shows, presentations, and even screen savers."

Ken Burns effect in Ajax: Use good ole DHTML and XML to whip stuff around on your screen. Or as the link says "I animate the images with random slow moves, zooms, and fades to give a pleasing version of the Ken Burns Effect without having to download Macromedia® Flash or any other heavyweight animation tools."

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (-1, Troll)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181442)

In other news, the Bush Administration can no longer deny that the insurgency in Iraq has grown into a full scale civil war, after it was reported that Ken Burns has shown up in Bagdad to film a documentary.

Glad that's sorted (0, Redundant)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181480)

When I read "Burns" I thought some guy in that "The Simpsons" show...

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181561)

The Ken Burns effect? I'd always just thought of it as the cheap way of dealing with a lack of material to work with. I wonder if he's proud that his name has become synonymous with a method of padding out content?

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (2, Insightful)

hazem (472289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181597)

Isn't most of what's on TV just padded-out content anyway?

Dealing with a lack of material to work with... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181612)

Actually, Ken Burns has a wealth of material to work with, but none of it moves. He scowers the public records, historical accounts, and personal diaries to find these very insightful, personal accounts that really bring to life a time before universal capture of moving images. He scans and pans over static images to create a backdrop for what is essentially a book on tape. He does an excellent job considering the lack of movies and video, but not for lack of material.

Re:Dealing with a lack of material to work with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181619)

Ah. Fair enough then. The sort of thing I'm talking about, though, is when the news takes a CCTV image and pans around as if it were a camera.

Re:Dealing with a lack of material to work with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181676)

Wow, "scowers". Did you mean "scowrers?"

Re:Dealing with a lack of material to work with... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181760)

Feel a slight sting? That's pride fucking with you.

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (1)

GGardner (97375) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181624)

No, the reason is that the source material (e.g. the photographs) have way more information than can be displayed on a standard def television screen. Panning around a zoomed image is one way to show all the detail that's there.

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (2, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181971)

You just reminded me of why I despise Ken Burns. I was about halfway through The Civil War, which I had mostly enjoyed up til then. Then I realized I was watching a hyper-sentimental set of images from a veterans' reunion for the third time. Not the same reunion all three times, of course, but all three sets of images pretty much said the same thing. Then I realized I wasn't watching history, I was watching sentiment porn.

But this sort of crap plays well with the big corporations that underwrite Burns's projects. After all, it's not that different from the corny TV commercials they spend even more money on. And that's the audience Burns is playing to, not TV viewers. When something generates money, yeah, people are proud of it!

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (3, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181606)

It isn't really Ken Burnsy unless there's corny and/or maudlin music playing in the background. Also, the pictures have to be so goddamn sentimental, you want to puke.

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (1, Troll)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181645)

Ken Burns effect in Ajax: Use good ole DHTML and XML to whip stuff around on your screen. Or as the link says "I animate the images with random slow moves, zooms, and fades to give a pleasing version of the Ken Burns Effect without having to download Macromedia® Flash or any other heavyweight animation tools."

Great. So now I have to sit through pointless slideshows on web sites instead of pointless Flash animations. That makes things so much better. I think I'll go back to reading books.

Re:This is detailed Ajax, Ken Burns style... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181662)

Oh shit, it's moving Marge. Ya, things on the screen, they're moving.

Ajax and the Mr. Burns effect.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181394)

It's Exxxcellent.

Re:Ajax and the Mr. Burns effect.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181776)

Exaaaactly.

If the Web 2.0 revolution has one buzzword, it's.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181407)

can'tcountuptofour

Buzzword compliance? Check (3, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181419)

The use of AJAX technique in that example is spurious, at best. It's almost sad, really, since that's probably the only reason this article was accepted.

Rich Corinthian Leather (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181578)

Maybe it would help if they hired Ricardo Montalbán to say the title on account of his Star Trek background, and perhaps Fantasy Island?

Ajax is for..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181420)

FIRST POST!!!!!!

Suck my anus slashdot. I wish I could kill ever slashdotter with my feces. CHOKE ON MY SHIT!!!! I'm going to use your mouth as a human toilet.

8=====D~~~~~ I hate slashdotters because they are sooo baised. DOES IT RUN LINUX!!!! My anus does!

fuck you slashdot. You're so boring

Re:Ajax is for..... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181469)

Your anus runs Linux?

Now I've heard everything.

Re:Ajax is for..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181625)

Linux passes through my anus when I have the runs.

Re:Ajax is for..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181786)

O RLY?

Yet another thing XML complicates... (3, Insightful)

gregmac (629064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181427)

Yes, AJAX is great. Of course, the XML bit of it gets in the way, it's simpler to just grab the appropriate HTML or Javascript code directly from the server. Why write something that outputs in XML, then write client-side Javascript to re-interpret it and run javascript code or create HTML? XML is just a complication for most tasks.

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (2, Insightful)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181573)

It's probably worth the extra effort and wasted resources just to be able to call the finished product AJAX.

AJAX does not require XML (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181780)

In practice, AJAX means Asynchronous JavaScript And XMLHttpRequest. Nothing in the XMLHttpRequest [wikipedia.org] object's interface requires that the retrieved data be XML; it could be in other notations such as CSV or JSON.

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (2, Interesting)

DarthDevilous (949043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181647)

Ah but you see, if HTML were used it would be called AJAH, and that doesn't sound anywhere near as buzzy as AJAX. the X(ML) makes the difference!

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (2, Insightful)

drig (5119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181730)

With XML, you can return raw data that can be formatted much more flexibly on the client-side. For instance, I have a search that returns the data in XML. That way, I can update the status section, include the search results, and even zoom to the first result. If it sent back preformatted HTML, I would only be able to update the search results bit.

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181787)

With XML, you can return raw data that can be formatted much more flexibly on the client-side.

So what is the advantage of XML over JSON or even CSV in this case?

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181910)

Shutup boy it has to be XML!
Now write me out 100 lines of <deny action="question" subject="buzzwords" />

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181783)

. . . now if only there where some way to . . . html as . . . xml application . . . the circle . . .

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181822)

. . . nah; I lost it. Ooohhh, look, a slide show! and that looks like somebody else's family! I think I'll sit through it . . .

Re:Yet another thing XML complicates... (2, Informative)

felix9x (562120) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181802)

I agree that this example is using xml requests for no reason. The list of images could have been a plain javascript array embeded in a tag in the html page. I think this article has more useful information about how to create slideshow effects using javascript. Although xml requests could be useful for other purposes this is not one of them. One thing that could make them useful for a slideshow is if it consistat of hundreds of images so xml can be used to load the data in chunks.

Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181437)

I still definitely refrain from Ajax like hell. The concept of delivering the load to client's computer whereas being subject to limitations of the visitor pc, and the risk of not being able to deliver the content as wanted or even at all, is one too big to take. Processing everything server side, and printing out just plain old HTML formatted result to a client pc, thus bypassing all overzealous anti-virus, privacy, anti-spyware and security software and any limitation the client pc has, is the surest thing to do, dont you think ?

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (0, Flamebait)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181460)

No, I don't think that, but I know why we disagree. You see, I understand what AJAX is and how it works, and apparently you don't. It's cool, though, if everyone was smart I wouldn't be special.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181916)

I don't think I can foresee a time when you shall not be special.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (3, Informative)

reldruH (956292) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181482)

I realize that because this is about websites, the dynamic changes slightly, but at some point you have to accept that technology has moved forward. There are industries where that happens much more quickly than in others (3d games come quickly come to mind, where they try and use every bit of performance they can get from all the newest cards), but it happens in all industries. While there are still people with Pentium 2's or older, how far back are you going to support? I think that any computer bought within the past 6-7 years (mine's up near that age) will have no problems doing the processing for something as low-weight as a web page. While you still have to deal with anti-virus/spyware/etc, I think the vast acceptance and usability of Flickr, Gmail, Google maps and all the other AJAX applications show that most people aren't having problems accessing AJAX content.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (2, Insightful)

i23098 (723616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181506)

Processing everything server side [...] dont you think ?

No :p
Available processing power of the client is the same when several clients access the web page.
Available processing power of the server degrades with the number of clients...

You must know you're target audience, and send most of the job you can to them (never trusting them), or by your logic, why send HTML, you better render it and send it as an image so that the client don't spend time prossecing all those HTML tags :p

This is very true (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181620)

IF you are going to take the view that you are not going to rely on the client having certain capabilities when are you going to stop?

Render the page server side as an image? So you presume the client has image capability?

I think that for to long we have tried to include everyone. Bending over backwards to support crap browsers with broken functions just to make sure nobody was left behind. Well fuck it. At a given point you must just be able to say, "upgrade or our site won't run".

If you don't the price is going to be that other people can move ahead and use new technologies while you are stuck with an ever dwindling but always present group of people who still use the same software from a decade ago.

Ask yourselve if this is normal in the real world.

Old cars can't run on modern petrol. Yet how many gas stations keep an old pump around for cars from before WW2? Try to get some polaroid film from your average camera store. A lp player from a highstreet electronics store.

Get the picture? So why on earth are we still worried about people using browsers 2 generations out of date.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181596)

You avoid it as a developer. I avoid it as an end user. I can barely spectate from a distance on AJAX sites, thanks to my slightly-below-average connection. I'm fairly sure Blogspot's main page uses AJAX for the scrolling list of recent posts, and it maxes out my Celeron D. Digg comment pages take over a minute to load on my computer.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

itp (6424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181673)

No.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181679)

I'm not aware of any anti-spyware, virus etc issues with Ajax that wouldn't also impact a normal http get request or other Javascript.

With Ajax, using it to update a part of a page instead of the whole page, you get less load on both the server, the connection and the client. I like it, in principle. Some effects just aren't possible to do in a usable way if you need to re-generate and transfer the whole page for every little update.

It certainly has problems, though - it messes with conventional navigation (like reload a page and you're back to where you were, the 'back' button doesn't work the way you want, bookmarking doesn't work), and also on some pages you don't get enough feedback, you don't realize that your click has any effect at all until the thing updates. Of course there are also issues with accessibility, etc.

Of course there are also issues with accessibility, etc. But all in all, I prefer Ajax to abuses of Flash, and I think that's the choice.

A policy of noscript (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181795)

I'm not aware of any anti-spyware, virus etc issues with Ajax that wouldn't also impact a normal http get request or other Javascript.

Unless, as is the case in some institutional IT installations, an overzealous proxy or group policy set on the web browser blocks all scripts from executing. What alternate content do you have in your applications' pages' noscript element?

all in all, I prefer Ajax to abuses of Flash

So if the user requests audio feedback for specific operations, or I want to make a slide show that contains synchronized narration, how do I provide it using AJAX?

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181691)

In this day and age, there's no reason anybody should be using Netscape 4, or any version of IE below 5.5.

It is not unacceptable to require users to be able to view CSS2, HTML 4, Javascript 3, and DOM1. These things are all old tech at this point - with well established standards with many years to have evolved, and supported by almost all of the market.

This isn't even about IE versus NS. You support the standard of those things I said, and your stuff will work on anything that's 6 years old or newer.

What does this have to do with AJAX? Not much...except that it is possible to do AJAX using those techiques rather than the new ways (and many of the old ajax libraries will support those new ways).

CSS2? IE fails it (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181811)

It is not unacceptable to require users to be able to view CSS2 [which is] supported by almost all of the market.

Among web user agents that run natively[1] on Microsoft Windows, a beta version of Opera is the only one that provides a reasonably complete implementation of CSS2. The others, including the latest releases of the top two (Microsoft Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox), fail the Acid2 test. In fact, IE fails much more basic CSS2 tests.

[1] Here, I define "natively" to exclude cygwin1.dll, unless you can make a case that millions of users of millions of Windows machines should install Cygwin, X11, and KDE to get Konqueror.

Re:CSS2? IE fails it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181850)

but if IE didn't fail so horribly, we wouldn't have the asterisk hack at our disposal, now would we? No, instead we'd have to write a javascript to detect browser and then write up an entirely seperate stylesheet for it (because even if IE didn't fail so horribly, it would still fail pretty bad; it's just the natural order of things).

Re:CSS2? IE fails it (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181968)

While Opera's CSS implementation is rather golden in my opinion (*see rant below*) the Acid2 test doesn't test for compliance of CSS standards. This has been said many many many times.

I sure wish the webstandards.org guys would place a notice atop the test page, in big red letters, "THIS IS NOT A COMPREHENSIVE STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TEST"

*RANT* I personally suspect alot of supposed Opera breakage is just legend from old versions and poor understanding, or testing of, standards by web designers. It's annoying to read posts that imply that because a CSS webpage doesn't work quite right in Opera but does in Firefox that it is all Opera's fault. Do people not realise it is possible to have a page that utilises CSS2 (and validates) but is still incorrect?

Google agrees with you , this is why Gmail.... (4, Informative)

Shohat (959481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181708)

This is why Gmail has an alternative to the Ajax interface , and you can switck to HTML mode , and it just removes the AJAX dependant features :
* Filter creation
* Settings (Including Forwarding and POP)
* Spell checker
* Keyboard shortcuts
* Address auto-complete
(from http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe r=15049 [google.com] )
Google really sets a fine example here by letting users choose what kind of interface they prefer , even though they could easily just ignore these users, as I personaly dont know anyone that uses this feature . Making a dual interface for AJAX applications on all these fluffy Web2.0 sites is a good idea , specially for mobile/light clients like that 100$ laptop [mit.edu]

Re:Google agrees with you , this is why Gmail.... (1)

the_duke_of_hazzard (603473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181918)

All those are dependent on AJAX? Wow, I must be really clever, cos I reckon I could do them without.

It depends what you're using the web for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181733)

I deeply resent sites that take too long to load because of all the gratuitous glitz. How about forgetting the stupid animation all together and just give me what I'm actually looking for.

It seems to me that one of the web search engines won't let ads with graphics on their site. Lets see ... who was it again? How much money are they making these days? Hmm.

If you actually need to show me a picture don't bother getting cute. If I want to watch animations I'll go looking for them.

Take my advice and you'll save lots of bandwidth and cpu cycles for both of us.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181803)

What risk are you talking about? It's perfectly possible to have fancy Ajax effects that degrade gracefully when the client can't handle them. You don't have to choose between Ajax and backwards compatibility.

The only risk is if you're a middle manager who isn't going to be doing the actual coding, and you don't know whether your developers are in the 10% who know what they are doing or in the 90% who copy the multitude of bad examples out there. And if you're in that position, I'd say you've already taken plenty of even bigger risks.

Re:Risk the Client PC's Limitations ? Not yet ... (1)

the_duke_of_hazzard (603473) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181927)

The above got marked as insightful? Jeez. I wish I could write functional websites in plain old HTML. It would make my life a lot easier. But it's rather like saying: "Why do we bother having event loops? What's wrong with simple old single-threaded programming?"

damn you ajax (1)

tlynch001 (917597) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181446)

One developer made a page to show how the data could be refreshed without a 'flicker' (postback). Now our customers are starting to demand that their web apps to be flicker free.

It's annoying when suddenly a deal breaker is "I don't like the flicker when I click the button".

Re:damn you ajax (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181554)

The worst is the salesman. See, they seem to (as well as the client) remember that a web app isn't the same as a desktop app. That you can't get the same functionality. Yes, it is improving, but there are still huge gaps in capabilities.

I blame them for telling the clients "oh we can do anything" when they don't understand the limitations of the technology.

Re:damn you ajax (2, Funny)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181931)

You know what..i like the fucking flicker. i want ajax with flicker substitute. How else am i going to enjoy bashing the refresh button when a website is so god damn infuriating?

The Headline Says "Ken Burns Effect" (5, Funny)

klenwell (960296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181457)

Where are the sepia tones, jazz soundtrack, and pedantic voiceover?

Tom

Yeah right, just the one buzzword then... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181475)

If the Web 2.0 revolution has one buzzword, it's... err, these three buzzwords, Asynchronous JavaScript and XML... hmmm, ok, scrap that.

All The Buzzwords in Web 2.0 (First Edition) (1)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181930)

Four buzzwords and a float if you count "Web 2.0" Five if you count "revolution". Let's not count "revolution".

However, now that AJAX is "Ajax" losing its acronym status, that's still five buzzwords.

Then there's XML, which is really "eXtensible Markup Language", totalling 8 buzzwords.

Then there's JavaScript, which is just one implementation of ECMAScript, the other most common one being JScript (10 buzzwords.)

In conclusion, if the Web 2.0 revolution has any buzzwords, these are them:

- Web
- 2.0
- Ajax
- Asynchronous
- JavaScript
- And
- XML
- eXtensible
- Markup
- Language
- World
- Wide
- Consortium
- Standards
- Driven
- Rich
- Internet
- Application
- XHTML
- CSS
- Content
- Scrambling... no wait... I mean...
- Cascading
- Style
- Sheet
- RSS
- Really
- Simple
- Syndication
- SVG
- Scalable
- Vector
- Graphics
- XUL
- User
- Interface
- Language
- Google
- Maps

Re:Yeah right, just the one buzzword then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181941)

Er, Ajax?

Ken Burns effect? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181485)

Ken Burns effect? What, it takes 10 hours to get through the thing?

Re:Ken Burns effect? (1)

Otto (17870) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181908)

Yeah, and afterwards, you feel like you've wasted your life watching it.

There are a lot of "Web 2.0" buzzwords... (2, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181491)

...Web 2.0 is a buzzword itself. I've seen an article that showed that many of the "Web 2.0" technologies are largely older technologies that have been renamed and rehyped, this time around, they took hold.

Re:There are a lot of "Web 2.0" buzzwords... (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181732)

Web 2.0 is a buzzword itself.
No it isn't. It's two words. Or even four. Or two-dot-zero, or four-dot-zero. And another thing, why does your name mean "The Girl"? Or are you named after a premium brand of Belgian butter?

buzzphrase (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181824)

No it isn't. It's two words.

Common definitions of "buzzword" [answers.com] include phrases. Your pedantry fails it ;-)

Interesting, but distracting (1)

Tumbarumba (74816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181521)

This looks like an interesting technique, but I think that you would have to have a very good reason to use this feature in a real presentation, otherwise it might come across as distracting. The presenter should be trying to make some sort of point (or sale, or argument, or...). I'm sure that there are some cases where this could really make a big different to a presentation, but I'd guess that these are fairly rare.

On the subject of web enabled presentation formats, I really like S5, Eric Meyer's Simple Standards-Based Slide Show System (see http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/ [meyerweb.com] ). This is much more simple than the technique from the article, and there are now some very powerful Scriptalicious extenstions that can add dynamic features to S5. One of my own presentations is at http://www.exubero.com/ant/antintro-s5.html [exubero.com]

Coolest Ajax UI Ever (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181558)

Client-side slide shows are nothing. This is the coolest Ajax UI ever [photobucket.com] . This simple yet Ajax intuitive UI:

  • was built with off-the-shelf, re-usable components
  • was assembled in minutes and required no debugging
  • has a scalable architecture
  • uses well-defined interfaces to separate objects
  • is inherently cross-browser compatible
  • runs on Windows, Linux, and OS X

buzzword... (0, Redundant)

Horas (932560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181591)

HAS a Buzzword? Web 2.0 IS the buzzword!

Sheesh... This article makes me puke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181604)

If the Web 2.0 revolution has one buzzword, it's Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (Ajax)

Yeah... a buzzwords (Web 2.0 (which technically doesn't exist)) buzzwordbuzzword (AJAX)...

Man, I'm happy to have the great hobby called programming and not actually being forced to listen to such BS every day on work before I get outsourced.

I wonder if they use such buzzshit in India? If not, maybe that's what they're doing right!

mod 3own (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181609)

OF AMERICA) is the I'll have offended Most people into a I've never seen the project is in asshole to 0thers of reality. Keep are about 7000/5 sadness And it was

When's the Object Oriented AJAX coming out? (2, Interesting)

Bin Naden (910327) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181617)

I've used Ajax a bit to develop an enterprise application and it just tends to turn into one big mess (perhaps by my own fault but nevertheless ;) ). Is there a completely object-oriented Ajax library out there because this would significantly improve the usability of ajax.

Re:When's the Object Oriented AJAX coming out? (1)

Basje (26968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181969)

Prototype:
http://prototype.conio.net/ [conio.net]

It's developed for ruby on rails, but can be used with any cgi language I guess.

I admire the coding, but... (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181643)

First, I will say this is a pretty slick piece of work. But the actual rendering (download the example and give it a shot) is nowhere near as smooth as what can be accomplished with an iPhoto slideshow, or with Flash.

I'd guess this is due to inefficiencies in the browser itself. I've seen similar issues when I've played around with animating multiple text objects (moving, resizing, and changing opacity) in the past.

If you want animation, use Flash (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181669)

Javascript will never get the timing right, and it will look tacky.

Now here's a good Flash animation. [cartoonnetworkla.com] Try doing that with "Web 2.0".

Must be written by an Enginee (1)

Alan Reynolds (922519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181704)

The article must be all true, since it uses engineering spelling [from the article]: "Jack Herrington..., Senior Software Enginee, Code Generation Network"

its 1998 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181712)


when flash really did have to be downloaded (all 250k of it)
now it comes as standard on Windows (since 1999)

still its good to see IBM are catching up, maybe they will discover WebTV and WAP next

what is wrong with this picture? (3, Insightful)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181723)

It's tough to show what this looks like in a browser without a movie. So, I took a single snapshot of the show and present it in Figure 6.

it's tough to show you what this looks like in a browser, when i'm plainly viewing it... WITH A BROWSER?

wtf?

From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15181742)

"The new model is more asynchronous, as shown in Figure 2."

You heard it here first: 'Web 2.0' "more asynchronous" than the Web.

Just for the record, in case the author fancies stopping his buzzword posturing:

"asynchronous
          adj 1: (digital communication) pertaining to a transmission
                        technique that does not require a common clock between
                        the communicating devices; timing signals are derived
                        from special characters in the data stream itself
                        [ant: synchronous]
          2: not synchronous; not occurring or existing at the same time
                or having the same period or phase [ant: synchronous]"

Mac screen shots? (1)

Hyperx_Man (936387) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181763)

Anyone notice they have MAC screen shots on this IBM web site? What is this world coming to?

Re:Mac screen shots? (1)

jasonhamilton (673330) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181810)

you mean besides the fact that ibm made powerpc chips?

Ridiculous waste of my time... (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181781)

Basically, this guy uses Ajax to download the list of images from the server, then uses DHTML to move them around the page.

Whoop-dee-do. It's like something that could have been done in 2000.

This is the stupidest example of Ajax I have ever seen. You use Ajax asynchronously to fetch ocuments on demand in order to reduce page reloads - you don't use it to download a 1kb list of images from the server you will only be using once during that page load.

Ajax is a useful technology (I use it often), but this article is a horrible example of it. It saves you nothing here - he could have just had the image list inline in the page and the user would see no difference.

The whole rest of the article is just DHTML, of which you could get much better examples at Dynamic Drive [dynamicdrive.com] or any of another dozen sites.

WHERE'S THE DEMO??? (2, Funny)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181799)

I don't get it, why do they fully detail a web cool app without a live demo??

Are there any examples of this in action?

Re:WHERE'S THE DEMO??? (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181973)

What and prove AJAX is just as slashdottable as anything else and tarnish it's smooth silky sexy little image here on Slashdot? No way!

Term coined by Steve Jobs haha (2, Interesting)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181804)

The Ken Burns effect was a term coined by Steve jobs with iphoto was launched. The Pan and Scan effect as it is properly called has well been around long before Ken used it. We just associate it with him because most of his Documentaries are about subjects that had only or mostly still images to use in the show. I am Highly amussed now that a Purly Steveism is not a main stream term. If you can show me a use of Ken Burns Effect prior to iPhoto please link me up.

They do it all wrong! (3, Informative)

Moskie (620227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181832)

They're onto something here, but they botch a very important step: what they do with the XML once it's returned. Instead of generating the HTML through Javascript as they do, it makes much more sense to use XML transformations.

I've taken the dive into Ajax recently to do dynamic in-page searching. For a web-app I develop for my work, on a particular page the user needs to select a client (from the thousands we have in our database). I have a spot on the page where they can provide search criteria for the client they want to select. I perform the search with Ajax, display the results, and the user selects which client they want to pick.

I've found the the step of displaying the results can be slowest step. At first, I had the Ajax function return a JSON associative array containing the data. I would then loop through it and create the HTML I needed through Javascript (much as they do in the linked example).

However, if something along the lines of hundreds of records were returned, the client's browser would freeze for a period of time (depending on the performance of the client's machine) while generating that HTML. This became unacceptable.

The superior way to display the results is with XML transformations. Beleive me, it's a monumental difference, and if you're doing something like I was, you should look into it. Have the Ajax function return XML, then use an XSLT style sheet to transform those results into the HTML you want to display. It's super fast, and worth the trouble.

Where did the Javascript Haters go? (2, Interesting)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181874)

Everyone Hates Javascript, no one here would ever admit to allowing javascript run on their browsers due to the infinite number of security problems it creates ... or so says nearly everyone who has posted on this website in the last few years.

We've read this a thousand times in a thousand stories, only fools let javascript operate despite all the incredible things it can do.

BUT ... rename it as AJAX ... suddenly its all good.

What a bunch of buzzword suckers you all are.

AJAX is nothing new, its just a name for using a certain javascript technique.

perhaps not relevant (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181897)

Java always slows things way down, so whenever i get to a site that does have java, i get out and look for an equivalent bit of information at some other site, or if it is a merchant, i don't buy that item.

Beyond My Ken (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15181912)

I thought the "Ken Burns Effect" is the effect that popular US history documentaries have on US national archives. Like the Smithsonian giving Viacom's Showtime cable station a monopoly on access to the archives [boingboing.net] . Kinda like burning the public archives, without burning the money it makes a private corporation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?