Yea, I can't speak to number 3, but reading up on how 1.3 deals with events would be helpful there. As for #2, I don't know what standards they're recommending you play to, but I ALWAYS hide from the CSS instead of the javascript. The reason is twofold:
#1: So if there is no javascript enabled, then they don't get to see anything but the layout. #2: A good 80% of my content comes in via ajax, so if JS is disabled, they're going to have a tough time viewing the rest of my site. #3: Who tools around with JS disabled anymore? Are there honestly a group of people who do? Are these the same people who still have cookies turned off and expect the internet to do interesting things? Honestly, spending an extra hour and a half of dev time in a massive project to make the site kind-of-work for people without jS is a waste of time. On Jan 29, 7:46 am, donb <falconwatc...@comcast.net> wrote: > Check out 'event delegation' and/or the new v1.3 event handling > features. > > On Jan 29, 1:25 am, B <bilalallaw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have read a lot of articles about separating javascript from markup > > and jQuery encourages the practice of unobtrusive javascript. Even > > though jQuery makes it extremely easy to implement event binding, I > > have a few questions which I was hoping you could help me with. > > > 1) When you bind elements on document.ready(), isn't that more > > inefficient than using the onclick() etc function available inside the > > markup. When you bind the events on document.ready() you have to > > traverse the DOM to locate each element to bind the event to adding > > extra over head. I am working on a website which currently has around > > a 100 different events on a page, and normally I just use the onclick, > > onmouseover function available in the <a href> markup to define these > > event while passing $(this) as a parameter, giving me access to the > > caller and preventing the extra work needed to bind the events. > > Example <a href="#" onclick="myFunction($(this))">my function call </ > > a>. Am I wrong in my reasoning that this is more efficient than > > binding on document.ready() ? > > > 2) Also if you had an extremely long page and you bound events on > > document.ready() wouldn't there be instances where the javascript > > would not be immediately available while the page is loading? I have > > read that it is recommended when using hidden text or hidden areas to > > not set the display:none inside the css, but instead use a javascript > > function call on document.ready() to hide them. This has the advantage > > of preventing the text to be hidden for users who have javascript > > disabled. Wouldnt this again have the issue of the hidden text > > flashing on the screen? > > > 3) Currently I am using JSPs in which i sometimes come across the > > following senario. There is a link for "write a review". If a user is > > logged in it opens a review box, if the user is not logged in, it > > opens a login form. The login for which action will be triggered > > onclick is handled via the JSP tags. > > <c:if test="loggedIn"> <a href="#" onclick="login()">review</a></c:if> > > <c:if test="notLoggedIn"> <a href="#" onclick="writeReview()">review</ > > a></c:if> > > If I move to unobtrusive javascript, what would be the best way to > > handle scenarios like this? > > > Thank you for your time. I would really appreciate any insight you may > > have, I really want to move to unobtrusive javascript, but the above > > issues make me reconsider it everytime > > > Thanks :)
