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
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.
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.
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.
I am new to ajax and i wanted to know if we can load a complete new page and not just a part of it using ajax. Please give a small example script for understanding if this is possible. Here i am trying to display only one url to user while i change from one page to another when he clicks on any of the links in the page.
You can of course request for a new page and load it via body.innerHTML = ajax.responseText;
I would strongly recommend against this though for reasons outlined in this post: Why not just using ajax for Page Requests to load the page content?
The whole premise really is that with
AJAX you don't need to reload the
whole page to update a small
percentage of that webpage. This saves
bandwidth and is usually much quicker
than reloading the whole page.
But if you are using AJAX to load the
whole page this is in fact
counterproductive. You have to write
customised routines to deal with the
callback of the AJAX data. Its a whole
lot of extra work for little to no
increase in performance.
General rule for where to use AJAX: If
your updating >50% of your page, just
reload, else use AJAX.
You will not only need to request for the new page, but then also take care of ensuring the old styles on the current page are removed and don't interfere with the new page. Theres all sorts of problems associated with what your trying to do. It's possible, but I recommend not to do it.
edit: actually you might be able to just do document.write(ajax.responseText) which should take care of overwriting everything in the document, including css styles etc. Though still don't recommend it.
When you're finished with processing the AJAX request simply use this JS line:
window.location.replace('<URL of the new page>');
This has exactly the effect of loading the new page via
....
When you make an AJAX request, a request goes off and brings you the contents of the URL that you have requested. Now technically you can do whatever you like with the contents (which could be HTML), you can replace any element within the DOM with it. Be careful however of replacing EVERYTHING on the page, you are more likely just going to want to replace what is within the tags.
If what you want to do is show one URL for multiple pages, AJAX is overkill. Why not just use an IFRAME?
This could be useful if your page was unsure if it was expecting back errors to be inserted onto the page or a "new" submission confirmation page. This can be used when you want to put a validation servlet (or whatever) in front of the submission servlet (or whatever). If the page always hits the validation servlet, you hide the submission servlet which actually performs the data update. In the case where the validation passes, forward to the submission servlet. The user never knows what happened in the background.
When the page gets a response back you could just look at the first portion of the response text and determine if it had a keyword set by the server, which means this is a new page. Remove the keyword from the text, and do document.write(ajax.responseText); as described previously. Otherwise insert the response text into your errorBox div and let the user retry submission.
When cached, my starting page only needs to load one element (the "root document") - but then it needs some time until it's rendered completely:
alt text http://www.walkner.biz/_temp/firebug_net.png
The elements following are things loaded asynchronous via JavaScript.
Two questions:
Why does it take so "long" from loading the root document until the DomContentLoaded-event?
Does it make sense to load some not-so-important things asynchronously? Is it important to have the DmoContentLoaded-event as early as possible? Unfortunately there's not much documentation about that event, but I don't think it's the moment when the page is displayed, is it?
I'm not sure YSlow is gonna help him as that will download all elements for a page and run performance tests on them, whereas swalkner's problem is how long it is taking to render the HTML page itself when all other elements (images, CSS, etc) are cached.
At least that's what I think he's saying.
In the original question you said, "The elements following are things loaded asynchronous via JavaScript." but then listed nothing. What is loaded?
I would suggest checking for Javascript errors in the first instance. Then try removing some of your asynchronous loading calls one by one until you hit the bottleneck. In fact, remove them all, how long does the downloaded HTML take to render? Take that time and work from there.
Is your HTML document very big? Does it use lots of inline styles that could be in the CSS file?
Perhaps if you posted a link to the site then people would have a look at it.