Comments on: ajaxWrong http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/ Thu, 10 May 2012 17:22:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Balaji’s Blog » links for 2006-03-31 http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-2/#comment-44622 Balaji’s Blog » links for 2006-03-31 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:50:43 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-44622 [...] Continuing Intermittent Incoherency » ajaxWrong Criticism of abusing the word Ajax starts - is XUL Ajax? (tags: ajax xul web2.0 op-ed) [...] [...] Continuing Intermittent Incoherency » ajaxWrong Criticism of abusing the word Ajax starts – is XUL Ajax? (tags: ajax xul web2.0 op-ed) [...]

]]> By: Something to whine about http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-2/#comment-41173 Something to whine about Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:34:39 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-41173 here's something that we should whine about. Expected widget behavior in AJAX. If a webpage widget looks like a tab widget, it ought to act like a tab widget. Clicking on a tab should not cause a new window to pop up as example on the following website: http://www.ajaxxls.com/ here’s something that we should whine about.
Expected widget behavior in AJAX. If a webpage widget looks like a tab widget, it ought to act like a tab widget. Clicking on a tab should not cause a new window to pop up as example on the following website:

http://www.ajaxxls.com/

]]> By: Get Over IT http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-41172 Get Over IT Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:28:53 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-41172 There's better things to whine about than semantecs. There’s better things to whine about than semantecs.

]]> By: Brian http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5625 Brian Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:30:49 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-5625 I guess you were vindicated: http://www.michaelrobertson.com/ajaxtunes (later just http://www.ajaxtunes.com) is their latest product; it's nothing more than a Flash-based MP3 streamer controlled by a little Javascript. Ajax my red rosy ass. I guess you were vindicated:

http://www.michaelrobertson.com/ajaxtunes (later just http://www.ajaxtunes.com) is their latest product; it’s nothing more than a Flash-based MP3 streamer controlled by a little Javascript. Ajax my red rosy ass.

]]> By: Uptonian Thoughts » AjaxWrite - Thomas Upton And His Musings http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5611 Uptonian Thoughts » AjaxWrite - Thomas Upton And His Musings Sat, 15 Apr 2006 22:54:22 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-5611 [...] Am I the only one who thinks that AjaxWrite is not only the least impressive Ajax app out there, but one of the worst ideas for a webapp, period? Probably not, but it seems to have generated a huge amount of buzz recently. Alex Russel shares my sentiments, and I’m glad for it. [...] [...] Am I the only one who thinks that AjaxWrite is not only the least impressive Ajax app out there, but one of the worst ideas for a webapp, period? Probably not, but it seems to have generated a huge amount of buzz recently. Alex Russel shares my sentiments, and I’m glad for it. [...]

]]> By: Something Witty Goes Here » Blog Archive » SVG News Digest: 2006-04-13 http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-5604 Something Witty Goes Here » Blog Archive » SVG News Digest: 2006-04-13 Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:45:01 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-5604 [...] Even though some web developers had problems both with using the prefix AJAX to capitalize on the buzz and the fact that it uses a Mozilla-only technology (XUL), the ajaxSketch demo was released. The good news is that it uses SVG+XUL to deliver a nice little web-based drawing application. Of course the demo only works in Firefox 1.5. [...] [...] Even though some web developers had problems both with using the prefix AJAX to capitalize on the buzz and the fact that it uses a Mozilla-only technology (XUL), the ajaxSketch demo was released. The good news is that it uses SVG+XUL to deliver a nice little web-based drawing application. Of course the demo only works in Firefox 1.5. [...]

]]> By: Petertable http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2499 Petertable Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:45:43 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2499 hi alex, it's bout time i say this as I've visited your site many times: The font you use on your post is so damn small, makes my eyes hurt! hi alex, it’s bout time i say this as I’ve visited your site many times:

The font you use on your post is so damn small, makes my eyes hurt!

]]> By: David Davis http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2399 David Davis Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:04:03 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2399 Using 'ajax' in your product name, company name, and or service name is just lame. It is analogous to l33t speak. 4j4x\^/r1+3 y0! Using ‘ajax’ in your product name, company name, and or service name is just lame.

It is analogous to l33t speak. 4j4x\^/r1+3 y0!

]]> By: Mario http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2324 Mario Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:36:14 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2324 These apps are not 'AJAX' apps and are wrongly presented as such. Alex is right 8) These apps are not ‘AJAX’ apps and are wrongly presented as such. Alex is right 8)

]]> By: paxtonland » Friday Boredome Documentation http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2323 paxtonland » Friday Boredome Documentation Sat, 01 Apr 2006 03:10:12 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2323 [...] ajaxWrong is why Ajax Write (from the last linkfestopalooza) is, well… wrong. [...] [...] ajaxWrong is why Ajax Write (from the last linkfestopalooza) is, well… wrong. [...]

]]> By: Jeff Schiller http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2322 Jeff Schiller Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:18:14 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2322 Maybe: AJAX = Amazing JavaScript And XUL AJAX = Almost JavaScript And XAML Maybe:

AJAX = Amazing JavaScript And XUL
AJAX = Almost JavaScript And XAML

]]> By: alex http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2320 alex Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:38:34 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2320 Hi Michael, Thanks for taking the time to respond in person. I understand your point about users not caring about the underlying technology, but I think your example does more to prove my point than yours. You say that "users didn't care about 'mp3', they just wanted to hear digital music", and that's the power of Ajax in a nutshell. Users don't have to know what browser is "more ajaxy", they just point their browser at a particular site and they get an enriched experience over the previous generation of webapps. Your application breaks this contract. Attempts to justify marketing a single-renderer experience under the banner of a more inclusive technology aren't easier for me to swallow because you're somehow playing off a cause everyone supports (Mozilla) against one that has a broader but less vocal constituency (the Open Web). It's simply misdirection and does nothing to address the salient points of this debate. A ship-date committment to a cross-browser version of "ajaxWrite", on the other hand, would. Regards Hi Michael,

Thanks for taking the time to respond in person.

I understand your point about users not caring about the underlying technology, but I think your example does more to prove my point than yours. You say that “users didn’t care about ‘mp3′, they just wanted to hear digital music”, and that’s the power of Ajax in a nutshell.

Users don’t have to know what browser is “more ajaxy”, they just point their browser at a particular site and they get an enriched experience over the previous generation of webapps. Your application breaks this contract.

Attempts to justify marketing a single-renderer experience under the banner of a more inclusive technology aren’t easier for me to swallow because you’re somehow playing off a cause everyone supports (Mozilla) against one that has a broader but less vocal constituency (the Open Web). It’s simply misdirection and does nothing to address the salient points of this debate.

A ship-date committment to a cross-browser version of “ajaxWrite”, on the other hand, would.

Regards

]]> By: Michael Robertson http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2319 Michael Robertson Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:21:10 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2319 To me ajax is about delivering rich, interactive applications completing over the net in an easy to launch way. It's about the trend not specific coding techniques. Let me give you an example. I started MP3.com. Users didn't really care about "mp3" they just wanted to hear digital music. When we first launched, all of lofi clips were in real audio, not MP3. Users didn't care about the specific audio compression being used, they just wanted their music. To me, ajax is the same. Users could care less how the new Yahoo mail interface (not technically ajax) or Google maps (technically ajax) is coded, they just want rich interactive applications. And if ajax is a trend that pushes the industry in that direction (which I think it is), then great. Yes, ajaxWrite uses XUL and also doesn't need client server interactions with this version since there's no online collaboration features - yet. ajaxWrite could run on other browsers, but we choose to launch with Firefox for now because it gives us cross-platform (mac,ms,linux) but limits QA needs at this time. Plus I like the folks at Mozilla and if I can help them in their epic struggle with MS so much the better. Competition is a good thing and the only reason MS is investing anything into browser development is because of Firefox. -- MR To me ajax is about delivering rich, interactive applications completing over the net in an easy to launch way. It’s about the trend not specific coding techniques.

Let me give you an example. I started MP3.com. Users didn’t really care about “mp3″ they just wanted to hear digital music. When we first launched, all of lofi clips were in real audio, not MP3. Users didn’t care about the specific audio compression being used, they just wanted their music.

To me, ajax is the same. Users could care less how the new Yahoo mail interface (not technically ajax) or Google maps (technically ajax) is coded, they just want rich interactive applications. And if ajax is a trend that pushes the industry in that direction (which I think it is), then great.

Yes, ajaxWrite uses XUL and also doesn’t need client server interactions with this version since there’s no online collaboration features – yet.

ajaxWrite could run on other browsers, but we choose to launch with Firefox for now because it gives us cross-platform (mac,ms,linux) but limits QA needs at this time. Plus I like the folks at Mozilla and if I can help them in their epic struggle with MS so much the better. Competition is a good thing and the only reason MS is investing anything into browser development is because of Firefox.

– MR

]]> By: Neil http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2318 Neil Thu, 30 Mar 2006 21:26:10 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2318 And yet this is exactly the problem with the rise of "Lite", "Light" and "Reduced Calorie". Food companies claimed that these terms were arbitrary, and that things like mono and triglycerides, and high fructose corn syrup were okay in their "healthy alternatives" because they have an uninformed public who have a positive association to these terms. "After all," they say, "'lite' isn't even a word." So now, we have a bunch of fat Americans eating their "Lite" ice cream and still wondering why they're fat. Just because you can misuse a term doesn't mean that you should. And yet this is exactly the problem with the rise of “Lite”, “Light” and “Reduced Calorie”. Food companies claimed that these terms were arbitrary, and that things like mono and triglycerides, and high fructose corn syrup were okay in their “healthy alternatives” because they have an uninformed public who have a positive association to these terms. “After all,” they say, “‘lite’ isn’t even a word.”

So now, we have a bunch of fat Americans eating their “Lite” ice cream and still wondering why they’re fat. Just because you can misuse a term doesn’t mean that you should.

]]> By: UZY.nl » Blog Archive » Na AjaxWrite nu AjaxSketch http://infrequently.org/2006/03/ajaxwrong/comment-page-1/#comment-2317 UZY.nl » Blog Archive » Na AjaxWrite nu AjaxSketch Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:09:31 +0000 http://alex.dojotoolkit.org/?p=551#comment-2317 [...] Misschien wel spannender is dat het gebruik van het woord Ajax heeft voor wat oproer gezorgd. Vooral Alex Russell, een van de makers van de Dojo toolkit (een javascript library met onder andere handige Ajax functies), vindt dat de door Robertson gelanceerde applicaties niets met Ajax te maken hebben (de applicaties zijn gebouwd met XUL technologie) en alleen probeert mee te surfen op de hype van Ajax. [...] [...] Misschien wel spannender is dat het gebruik van het woord Ajax heeft voor wat oproer gezorgd. Vooral Alex Russell, een van de makers van de Dojo toolkit (een javascript library met onder andere handige Ajax functies), vindt dat de door Robertson gelanceerde applicaties niets met Ajax te maken hebben (de applicaties zijn gebouwd met XUL technologie) en alleen probeert mee te surfen op de hype van Ajax. [...]

]]>