I'll admit that I'm pretty new web development (only been coding for about a year) and especially green when it comes to JS / jQuery.
A specific web page I've built loads different data based on hovering over certain categories: country clubs, resorts, hotels, etc. When I built the site on my local machine, the javascript function was super quick. However, on the live site, it has a long delay before the data swap happens.
The URL is: http://preferredparkingsolutions.com/client_list.html
Which links to a javascript function at: http://preferredparkingsolutions.com/scripts/clientHover.js
Which replaces the display div (#client_list) by pulling data from a text file.
Is there a better / faster way of doing this?
Yes, this could be optimised by loading the content in up-front and caching it. Currently you are doing a HTTP request each for each and every hover - even if the user has hovered over that element before, since the AJAX responses aren't being cached. Doing this would be your quickest win.
However, I can't see any case at all for having the content live externally. Is there any reason you're against having the content physically in the page and just using show/hide methods? There's various benefits to this - SEO, for one thing, since Google will find the content.
this is the external page you are loading http://preferredparkingsolutions.com/client_list.inc.html and the content looks little and looks like its a static page then why not just load every thing upfront and then just hide and show div's ? as Utkanos suggested you will aslo have a SEO benifit and also its HTTP request each for each and every hover. if you still want to load it externally lost load it once and cache it and use the cached version to hide and show divs.
Related
Okay I do not know how to explain this to you, It may be just my internet, or maybe my site is slower, or they really have a technique for doing this.
If you visit Facebook, Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, and if you click on links or any actions on those websites, the url changes but the browser tab doesn't show any loading circle.
How do they do that?
I am pretty sure my website is fast enought and at times it loads even faster than the bigger sites, but mine shows the loading circle on the browser tab.
Okay so I found the answer. Here is the technique for changing the url without reloading the page.
Updating address bar with new URL without hash or reloading the page
How do I modify the URL without reloading the page?
I am still trying to figure out though how to redirect the actual page without reloading the entire page. I am guessing they are loading it via ajax or something similar upon url change. I'll update this once I figure it out.
Edit: I am currently working on this feature for my site. The technique is to use ajax to load the content based on the url. I'll update this thread more as I update my site with this feature.
Edit 2: Damn, you will probably face the same problem I had trying to detect the url change without using onhashchange. If so, here you go:
How to detect URL change in JavaScript
This literally took me 4 hours just to figure that one out.....
Edit 3: I have now integrated this feature on my site. You can check it at
Grandweb
It is quite simple, but lots of work in appending the content once retrieved via ajax. So here is the process:
I am using pushState(); to change the url without reloading the page.
var url = $(this).attr('href');
var split_url = url.split('/');
var new_url = url.replace('https://grandweb.net/','');
window.history.pushState("object or string", "Title", "/write");
Using 'mouseup' was a bad idea, I changed my mind.
I then have to trigger the first function using 'mouseup' to retreieve the content via ajax, and then listen to succeeding onpopstate() for the next ones, because some mouse actions such as Mouse 4 or Mouse 5 are bound to the browser's Back and Forward button, and does not trigger via 'mouseup'.
$(window).on('mouseup', function(evt) {
get_content();
}
window.onpopstate = function(event) {
get_content();
}
The first one is responsible for triggering the function on first try because onpopstate only listens only when the browser's history API is populated.
Using mouseup was a bad idea, basically, don't use it unless you really want to detect mouse action from anywhere on the document.
I instead use the anchor tags/links to trigger the first function for retrieveng content.
example:
<a class="dynamic_btn" href="website.com/post">Home</a>
then
$(document).on('click','.dynamic_btn',function(e){
e.preventDefault();
get_content();
});
Using onhashchange is possible IF you have hashes on your url. I do not use hashes on my url so basically onhashchange is useless in my use case, unless I do not know something.
After retrieving the contents, I append them via creating DOM elements to existing containers from the page.
This is much easier to do if you are planning to change few elements or containers in your pages. If you plan on doing this to change a full page layout, goodluck. It's doable, but it's a really pain in tha *ss.
Upon observing Facebook, I learned that they do not implement this technique in all of their links/features. It makes sense because this is harder to maintain most especially because most of the work here is being done client side. It is very nice though because the page doesn't load.
I have implemented it on a few 'essential' functions of my website such as the viewing of posts and returning to the homepage. I can implement it on the whole site, but I am still deciding on that. That is all, thank you very much for reading internet stranger.
Since its related to AJAX technology so I thought this is the best place to ask.
I am displaying 5 articles at a time to the user on my website and when he clicks 'Next' I load the next 5 articles using AJAX without loading the entire page.The result is that he always stays at the same page .
One of my friend told me that website ranking depends on number of page views and I think this obviously reduce my page views.
Should I not use AJAX then?
(This might be a stupid question but I seriously have no idea about ranking and SEO so please help)
By loading your content dynamically Google will not see the entire page. Only the part that is loaded. So, if Google rank is important for you it's better to not use an infinity loader.
Actually it is not a good idea to navigate page using AJAX. Consider a scenario,
display 5 articles first then by clicking Next button, next 5 items will load and so on... by using this the page will not become Search engine friendly.
in this case search engine can't locate your contents exactly and will crawl only initial contents.
but with some efforts you can make ajax navigation search engine friendly.. see example here.
Currently the scheme of loading content of page dynamically is not a good idea for SEO friendly web page but try considering other ajax page navigation schemes that might help the page to make dynamic as well as search engine friendly.
some suggested ajax navigation schemes are listed below,
http://nickjohnson.com/b/how-to-make-ajax-search-engine-friendly-seo
http://ajax.rswebanalytics.com/
http://www.symatix.co.uk/articles/ajax/search-engine-friendly-ajax-navigation
The business web application that I need to build for our company will use an accordion menu (such as the jQuery UI accordion).
I would like to use link jQuery click events to the accordion menu and load the content dynamically with the ajax .load shorthand.
Currently I'm dealing with an internal conversation where someone mentions that Ajax is slower than a regular browser request.
Now my question is: is that true, taken into account that:
The loading time of the accordion-content should be faster (all scripts / css / accordion / header loaded only once at the beginning);
The Ajax request does not influence the performance of any server actions;
Should I really use a browser request - and will it really be faster?
It seems very un-intuitive, using an accordion to use it as a static element that is just displayed on every page refresh.
I built a prototype before, using Ajax Load to load div containers with html and javascript, and it loaded as fast as a normal browser request would.
As for an answer, an ajax request is indeed smaller than a regular request for a page.
You have a few options where you could - pre-fetch the data, store this in an array or object and load it onclick of the slider,
or simply use ajax, this however will create another request which, if you have alot of users could potentially slow down your website.
pre-loading data into your html in hidden divs, or via a js.php directly into an array / object would be the most efficient way depending on the size of the contents.
Do know that ajax loaded content is not indexed by search engines and will be less SEO friendly.
My designer thought it was a good idea to create a transition between different pages. Essentially only the content part will reload (header and footer stay intact), and only the content div should have a transitional effect (fade or some sort). To create this sort of effect isn't really the problem, to make google (analytics) happy is...
Solutions I didn't like and why;
Load only the content div with ajax: google won't see any content, meaning the site will never be found, or only the parts which are retrieved by ajax, which arent't full pages at all
show the transitional effect, then after that 'redirect' the user to the designated page (capture the click event of a elements): effect is pretty much the same as just linking to another page, eg. user will still see a page being reloaded
I thought of one possible solution:
When a visitor clicks a link, capture the event, load the target with ajax, show the transitional effect in the meantime, then just rewrite the entire document with the content fetched with the ajax request.
At least this will work and has some advantages; the page reload will look seamless, no matter how slow your internet connection is, google won't really mind because the ajax content is a full html page itself, and can be crawled as is, even non-javascript browsers (mobile phones et al.) won't mind, they just reload the page.
My hesitation to implement this method is that i would reload an entire page using ajax. I'm wondering if this is what ajax is meant to do, if it would slow things down. Most of all, is there a better solution, eg. my first 'bad' solution but slightly different so google would like it (analytics too)?
Thanks for your thoughts on this!
Short answer: I would not recommend loading an entire page in this manner.
Long answer: Not recommended. whilst possible, this is not really the intent of XHR/Ajax. Essentially what you're doing is replicating the native behaviour of the browser. Some of the problems you'll encounter:
Support for the Back/Forward
button. You'll need a URI # scheme
to solve.
The Browser must parse
the entire page through AJAX.
This'll slow things down. E.g. if
you load a block of HTML into the
browser, then replace the DOM with
it, only then will any scripts, CSS
or images contained therein begin
downloading.
Memory - the
browser's not changing pages. Over
time (depending on the browser), I'd
expect the memory usage to increase.
Accessibility. Screen readers
will need to be notified whenever
the page content is updated. Might
not be a concern for you but worth
mentioning.
Caching. Browser
would not know which page to cache
(beyond the initial load).
Separation of concerns - your View
is essentially broken into
server-side pieces to render the
page's content along with the static
HTML for the page framework and
lastly the JS to combined the server
piece with the browser piece.
This'll make maintenance over time
problematic and complex.
Integration with other components -
you're already seeing problems with
Google Analytics. You may encounter
issues with other components related
to the timing of when the DOM is
constructed.
Whether it's worth it for the page transition effect is your call but I hope I've answered your question.
you can have AJAX and SEO: Google's proposal .
i think you can learn something from Gmail's design.
This may be a bit strange, but I have an idea for this.
Prepare your pages to load with an 'ifarme' GET parameter.
When there is 'iframe' load it with some javascript to trigger the parent show_iframe_content()
When there is no 'iframe' just load the page, with a hidden iframe element called 'preloader'
Your goal is to make sure every of your links are opened in the 'preloader' with an additional 'iframe' get parameter, and when the loading of the iframe finishes, and it calls the show_iframe_content() you copy the content to your parent page.
Like this: Link clicked -> transition to loading phase -> iframe loaded -> show_iframe_content() called -> iframe content copied back to parent -> transition back to normal phase
The whole thing is good since, if a crawler visit ary of your pages, it will do it without the 'iframe' get parameter, so it can go through all your pages like normal, but when you use it in a browser, you make your links do the magic above.
This is just a sketch of it, but I'm sure it can be made right.
EDIT: Actually you can do it with simple ajax, without iframe, the thing is you have to modify the page after it has been loaded in the browser, to load the linked content with ajax. Also crawlers should see the links.
Example script:
$.fn.initLinks = function() {
$("a",this).click(function() {
var url = $(this).attr("href");
// transition to loading phase ...
// Ajax post parameter tells the site lo load only the content without header/footer
$.post(href,"ajax=1",function(data) {
$("#content").html(data).initLinks();
// transition to normal phase ...
});
return false;
});
};
$(function() {
$("body").initLinks();
});
Google analytics can track javascript events as if they are pageviews- check here for implementation:
http://www.google.com/support/googleanalytics/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=55521
I like that, these days, we have an option for how we get our web content from the server: we can make an old-style HTTP request (with its own URL in the browser) or we can make an AJAX call and replace parts of the DOM on the fly.
My question is this: how do you decide which method to use when there's an option to use either?
In the "old days" we'd have to redraw the entire page (including the parts that didn't change) if we wanted to show updated content. Now that AJAX has matured we don't need to do that any more; we could, conceivably, render a "page" once and just update the changing parts as needed. But what would be the consequences of doing so? Is there a good rule of thumb for doing a full-page reload vs a partial-page reload via AJAX?
If you want people to be able to bookmark individual pages, use HTTP requests.
If you are changing context, use HTTP requests.
If you are dividing functionality between different pages for better maintainability, use HTTP requests.
If you want to maximize your page views, use HTTP requests.
Lots of good reasons to still use HTTP requests - Stack overflow is a wonderful example of those divisions between AJAX and HTTP requests. Figure out why each function is HTTP or AJAX and I'm sure you will derive lots more reasons when to use each.
My simple rule:
Do everything ajax, especially if this is an application not just pages of content. Unless people are likely to want to link to direct content, like in a blog. Then it is easier to do regular full pages.
Of course there are many blended combinations, it doesn't have to be one or the other completely.
A fair amount of development overhead goes into partial-page reloads with AJAX. You need to create additional javascript handlers for all returned data. If you were to return full HTML blocks, you would still need to specify where the content should go and whether or not it's replacing other content. You would potentially have to re-render header tags to reflect content changes and you would have to implement a history solution to make sure search engines can index each page (using SWFAddress jQuery plugin, for example). If you return JSON encoded data you have an additional processing step.
The trade-off for reduced bandwidth usage by not using a page refresh is offset by an increase in JS code and event bindings which could affect page rendering speed as well as visual effects.
It all really depends on your target audience and the overall feel you are trying to go for on your page. AJAX and preloaders are flashy, and people love flashy things. If you believe the end-user experience will improve by adding partial page loads by all means implement them.