Oh, absolutely, then we’re on the same page.

In fact, I prefer if web developers never solely relied on AJAX, no matter the environment.

I don’t agree with you there. I think you should use AJAX where you know it will enhance the end user experience, not where you necessarily know JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are supported.

No argument from me, but you shouldn’t rely on ‘AJAX’ features unless it’s in a controlled environment.

No problem, it’s a valid question. Personally, I think Flash is ok to use to enhance certain parts of a web site, definitely depending on what web site it is, of course, but not to build a full web site with.

Why not? There are a number of accessibility and usability issues with Flash. E.g:

- Text selection problems.
- Hard to only use the keyboard to navigate.
- Can’t open links in new tabs.
- Plugin dependant, therefore not as accessible on PDAs and cell phones.
- Doesn’t automatically downgrade in a nice manner, compared to a light-weight approach with HTML and unobtrusive JavaScript.

With that said, I’m not sure that AJAX is the best way to do it either. I think why it has become such a hype is because it’s fairly easy to implement and, most importantly, is based on already existing and vastly widespread technologies.

As I see it the feeling of working in a client application is the future of the Internet and then flash probably is the best alternative deisignwise.
And if you then combine a programming language such as VB or C # with that, you have a much more powerful application than AJAX that depends on Javascript. Am I totally wrong? I have just started to look at flash remoting and dont know so much about AJAX but I cant understand why not flash and flash remoting is more discussed.

Thanks!

Robert W,

Absolutely right, that’s exactly what it’s about!
Regarding getting published, I think I’m just riding the wave for PR attention for the moment. And you need to explain that Dave thing to me, I don’t get it…

Tommy,

I don’t agree with you there. I think you should use AJAX where you know it will enhance the end user experience, not where you necessarily know JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are supported.

It’s all about progressive enhancement and graceful degradation. Take the search on my web site as an example: on-the-fly updating for those who support it and a normal postback and new page for those who don’t.

Steve,

Actually, kind of both.
I’ll get to explaining as soon as possible.

Jens,

Thank you very much! I’m also glad that I got the chance to reach out in such a forum where their technical articles otherwise are rarely accurate or spot-on. It’s hard to find a good level, though, since many of their readers are beginners.

LOL, yes, perfect!

(By the way, I am a bit of a joker.)

@Steve:

Unobtrusive does mean that, with the exception of a <script type="text/javascript" src="foo" ></script> tag (or multiples thereof), there is no JavaScript within the (X)HTML code.

I’m particularly confused by what exactly is meant by ‘unobtrusive’ javascript? Does that mean it must not be embedded in the page at all, and/or that the page should function with javascript turned off, or something completely different altogether?

I should have said ‘may be fine’, I suppose.

In an environment where you know that JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest are supported, and you know that there are no users for whom asynchronous updates will pose accessibility problems, then ‘AJAX’ may be a good solution.

Good enough?

Is it normal that ordinary webmasters in Sweden often appear in IT Magazines; or do you just happen to know Dave very well already?

It’s cool. And not really off-topic, either, it’s all about AJAX and accessibility.

Chris, Richard,

Basically it’s all about the stuff I write here about accessibility, unobtrusive JavaScript etc. But most likely, I’ll write a post soon discussing the topic in English!

I disagree with your statement that AJAX are fine in … an Intranet. Are you suggesting that the disabled don’t work? Of course not, I know you better than that but I think that the accessibility of an Intranet should be considered equally to that of an Internet site. No, wait a sec, an Intranet should be considered more with respect to accessibility.

Why? To use a simple example, if you are a user that needs an accessible site and you are looking to buy a popular music CD, if you encounter an inaccessible music CD shopping site, you can simply move on to another. If you are an employee and need to record your attendance for the past month, if the HR application is inaccessible, you don’t have the choice of shopping around.

At my work, we have the choice of calling someone and getting them to fill out our HR forms for us but I don’t know what options other employers provide.

Sorry Robert for taking this off topic.

I think AJAX solutions has a very important role to play for public web sites as well. It’s all about implementing it properly, like the concept of ASK .

‘AJAX’ solutions are fine in a controlled environment, like an intranet. They are also fine for progressive enhancement on general-audience sites, but there really should be accessible alternatives in the latter case IMHO.