Quoting Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
AJAX - Is currently the best way to build responsive, in-browser application like experiences for performing actions on data* - AJAX is more than just a scripting language; it too can be the 'appropriate technology' for an API
Hmn. AJAX is a good excuse to have a decent API - it makes handling XMLHTTPRequests very easy. But it shouldn't be the only appropriate technology for an API. Plain HTTP GET/POST are perfectly acceptable interfaces to an API, too (and, obviously, should be implemented first).
- AJAX should be used when a site needs a responsive interface whilst being mindful of graceful experience decay - It's not magic web pixie dust - you need to design your interface for your intended audience. Our current design patterns serve a niche.
And you should design your interface *without it* first - the AJAX/JS should be a bit like pixie dust, in that you add it at the end of the process to make things better. You should never design interfaces that only work in AJAX - noscript alternatives could become a nightmare.
- Is - generally speaking - operating at a layer above the API, providing the tools for the user to manipulate the data the API offers up (this one will get me shouted at, I think?)
Not shouted at, no! It's just a muddling of ideals. AJAX is a presentation and UX tool: loading in new data without reloading the page. In order to do that, some form of back-end API helps/is necessary to abstract the process of writing code for AJAX. It's just plain old Javascript, only this time it's manipulating the DOM with data requested in the background.
The big kicker for any organisation with AJAX - especially the BBC - will be the accessibility one, which is colossal. Degrading for people without Javascript isn't necessarily enough - screenreaders understand javascript, but don't necessarily alert users to changes further up the page, and as such make AJAX of little use to that sector.
*I'm thinking, something along the lines of Ajax for what ajax does well... Namely thing X, and flash for what flash does well, namely thing Y. For values of Y approaching 'nice animation, games, interactive entertainment', and X approaching 'operations on XML, dynamic sites and databasey stuff...' But I kind of hit my technical limit in describing X. Anyone?
I tend to say "it allows you to update the page without it reloading, which makes the experience seamless and involving. You know how GMail feels like an application, and is quite fast? That's AJAX".
It doesn't make anything easier/better; it just offers new patterns for interaction design. One thing it does do is a few things that would previously only have been possible in Flash.
t. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
