Ajax Is The New Flash
Ajax (let’s not argue about naming) represents the next cool technology for web designers. Yes it has been available for years, but not until Google started using it has it gotten this much attention and been spread so rapidly amongst the community. However, just like Flash this creates a lot of issues for users of the web.
Flash became so popular among designers that they stopped becoming problem solvers and started becoming technology enforcers. When we design we should only use what is needed to solve the problem, nothing more, nothing less. If a company wishes to have a website that accurately portrays their message you have to ask yourself do you need Flash for that? If part of it includes moving objects and music then yes, otherwise the tool doesn’t fit the project.
With Ajax we again have the potential to see many websites appear with the thinking of how can I put Ajax into this site? Instead, we should look into what needs to be done with the website and how we can make the experience more fluid for the user. If Ajax fits into that equation then by all means use it, otherwise stay away.
The Bad
This whole article sprang into my mind after reading Johnnie Manzari’s Ajax: 99% Bad article on the problem with Ajax and maintaining state on the web.
The web is about linking. The flow of information is able to spread and be consumed by us all because we have the ability to link to each other. For many years the only page of a Flash site you could link to was the home page. This provides a problem for both the person linking and the reader because the linker can not specifically talk about a page without also describing how to find that page and the user has to worry about finding the page that the linker is talking about.
The dux05 website shows how Ajax is taking things in the wrong direction. All of the site’s content is contained within one file. I can only assume this was done to allow for faster loading of the pages, but you also get the idea that they did this simply because they could. Since the site is done in CSS and contains a minimal amount of graphics you are only saving about 0.5 seconds for the user by taking this approach.
Sure every second counts, but not at the expense of being able to link to the Submissions page or Organizers page.
This is a case where the development team tried to fit a site around a technology, instead of seeing if the technology was needed within the site to solve a problem.
The Good
37signals does an excellent job of integrating Ajax within their Tada Lists. Each link has its own permalink so if your list is public it can be linked to. Ajax is used to update the list on the page and therefore not effecting the state of the page whenever the list changes.
This is a good example of using Ajax because it shows how it was used to solve a problem. This could be done without Ajax and 6 months ago it probably would have been done without it, but if it was done that way each time a user added an item the page would have to be reloaded.
Once a new technology is released or finally gains mainstream acceptance, it takes some time for the dust to settle to actually see in what situations it makes sense to use it. sIFR for example has its place on the web, but it certainly doesn’t belong everywhere. Same goes with Flash and Ajax. Add these tools to your designer toolbox, but do not make it a case of having a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
Related reading:
I wouldn’t consider the Dux05 site to be AJAX… they’re just showing/hiding content with javascript. Nothing remote happening as far as I can tell.
By Kenzie on May 16, 2005 9:18 am
That’s a good call Kenzie and I jumped the gun on that one, but hopefully you can see how people would take Ajax in the wrong direction.
I was looking at it more from the perspective of not being able to link to any of the individual pages without realizing that there was no remote calls happening.
*red face
By Scrivs on May 16, 2005 9:27 am
While it does look like that site is not using Ajax to get content off of a webserver in “real” time, Scrivs’ point remains in tact, as the exact same thing could have been done with Ajax…
By Jeff Croft on May 16, 2005 10:38 am
Being a pretty new webber myself, I know very little about Ajax and all that, but I have seen it in use, and to put it bluntly, I have seen a small bit of random usage for the sake of using it. It’s good that it’s there, but there’s no need to take it to the extreme that people would to differentiate themselves from the rest. Web apps like Backpackit, Basecamp, and Tadalist are all very good examples of how one should use it. Hopefully more people take 37Signal’s example into consideration.
By brit on May 16, 2005 10:39 am
Ajax is a potential tool, nothing more. It’ll get used and abused but isn’t that one of the ways (along with cautionary articles like this) that we all develop a tools limits of appropriate use?
BTW - the pedant in me can’t help but point out that it is possible to link to particular ‘pages’ in an all-Flash site. You can pass a value along in a query string which will be passed to the root of the movie - one simple case statement in Actionscript later and hey presto - linkable sections.
By Kev on May 16, 2005 11:18 am
Yes I did fail to mention that over the past couple of years real Flash developers have been working hard on making all Flash pages linkable. Good point Kev.
By Scrivs on May 16, 2005 11:24 am
That site is still piss-poor - a conference on Designing for User Experience, and their site just plain doesn’t work if Javascript isn’t available? Doesn’t exactly inspire you with confidence for their abilities…
By Matthew Pennell on May 16, 2005 11:44 am
Ajax has the potential to go bad like Flash, and it’s coming in at a time where Flash is just getting some redemption in the form of HTML/Flash hybrids.
But overall, when used in moderation (Ajax is like alcohol!), Ajax has more potential to be A Good Thing than Flash originally was. But yes, please, everybody, take it easy. Only use Ajaxian techniques if it adds anything, not just ’cause it’s cool.
http://www.backbase.com/ was posted to Ajaxian.com recently and it gave me all the wrong vibes. Too slow, too Flash-like and inaccesible to the max.
Moderation, y’all. Moderation.
By Robb Irrgang on May 16, 2005 12:40 pm
Scrivs, I’m glad you jumped in on this one. The more people post about what they see as good and bad examples of design for sites that aren’t built around a page metaphor or that don’t rely on pages to update the interface, the more helpful it will be to the web community… maybe even helpful to our friends designing client apps too. Wait, the web without a page metaphor!?!! Nonsense! ;)
By Johnnie Manzari on May 16, 2005 1:23 pm
and yet another post about how ‘ajax is the new (filler)’
By Dustin Diaz on May 16, 2005 2:16 pm
Backbase could trim down they visual effects, but there is some pretty neat stuff going on. What’s impressive is their support of the back button (using the hash part of the url, as far as I can tell), which has always been a problem with Flash.
By cedric on May 16, 2005 4:10 pm
Was the title of this piece a deliberate pun? Around our way, Ajax and Flash are both bathroom cleaners.
By Richard Carter on May 16, 2005 4:26 pm
@Cedric: Whilst its true to say that Flash has never offered native support for the back button, there are ways around it.
To be honest, like Ajax, the problem with Flash was never really Flash - it was an immature product being used in a bad way that was the issue.
By Kev on May 17, 2005 1:52 am
Here is a fairly cool site I came across recently, but no ability to bookmark or link to ANY of the internal pages:
http://elsewhere.adactio.com/
By Jeff on May 17, 2005 7:47 am