Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AJAX for artists

Feb. 6, 2006

Type: event
Starts: Feb 7 2006 at 12:00AM
outbound link ↱

sorry if i wasn't clear. not what i meant by "just keep quiet". meant, "don't tell anybody, you are just doing it for no reason". glad people (and you) say stuff (even when i disagree). am mostly devils advocate who wants everybody to think hard about why they do what they do. so few admit the most trivial things to themselves.

and it is cool posting the "template" for folks to use and not have to figure out.

do think there's a weird imbalance of support for popularity over support for utility. group mentality is often a bad thing. (which is another reason to always be skeptical, i guess)

On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Jason Van Anden wrote:

Plasma Studii,

You bring up some really good points about past trends - I can
certainly understand feeling burned by over-hyped new tech. Been
there, done that.

I have been programming (not html coding, but programming) since
around 1979 - making my living with it since 1990. I am not sure I
need to justify my free advice beyond that.

Jason Van Anden

On 2/6/06, Plasma Studii wrote:
ha ha. "to Ajax or not to Ajax" will probably be a moot point in a few years anyway. that's really not my question though. no, i don't mind obsoletism. though higher end tech, rarely becomes obsolete. C was around before most of us were born. Perl was probably around before the net. Java has existed since it was created. PHP is relatively new, but i do hope it survives (not because i can't learn a new thing?) but because it's a useful solution. (CGI bins can be a pain for everyone, not just the server programmer)

What IS bothersome to me, is why people would choose "hot" over practical. why would consumers give anything that wasn't actually likely to improve their daily life a second thought? you're right, that there's "community support" but WHY? the same thing baffles me why there are so many bush supporters though it couldn't be simpler, he's bad at his job. start with 4 billion (or whatever) and end up in the negative billions. you can debate about the finer points of mismanaging a war, but that might require 4th grade level complexity. the budget thing is just clear cut, there is no subtltty to get. Likewise, a lot of computer tech is just blatantly useless or an impractical solution, to something that was hardly a problem. In many cases, like CSS, there was no problem, but a new wave of users (in about '99-'02), were impatient to make HTML more like print, rather than see they are very different animals.

It's great Google can use Ajax and the world map thing is a perfect example for them. But it's not one that applies to any of us. We don't have nearly that much info, or an audience as big who need to explore that much info. Even if we created an exact replica of the gooogle map, we just don't need to waste that much time creating millions of details, when maybe a thousand will ever be seen at most.

I am not arguing against knowing it though. remember image maps (before slices). that was cool, but now you rarely see em. browsers will still read em. you could surely run into a problem, where that'd be a good solution (needed it for a phrenology map a while ago). there are maybe 1 in 100 times, using meta tags for "push" animation has come up. hell, i bet there's a use for the tag (remember that?) things so rarely actually become obsolete.

i was just asking when could this possibly be useful? there aren't that many cases where you have a table of thousands of pieces of info, one would need scrolling precision to view, where a choice of buttons wouldn't be fine (though obviously a linear "forward", "back" buttons are just plain bad design). someone may really like info to slowly pan across the screen, rather than a "jump cut". but how is it worth the extra work to add that feature for this, if it means using the convoluted option instead of the easy one? ajax is hardly "neat" or "efficient". if it takes 5 times the work to add scrolling, it better be worth it.

if there's a practical reason to use it, i'm all for it. but if it's just "we climbed it because it was there", … just keep quiet.

Jason Van Anden wrote:

Lewis - how so?
(super weird gmail garbling of my last post -ack!)
Jason

On 2/6/06, Lewis LaCook wrote:> well, once we
start using a protocol more suited to network transmissions as>
networks are NOW all of this will be moot–>>> lol>>>>>>>>>> Jason
Van Anden wrote:> Programmers tend to be
skeptical of trendy new technologies,especially after> having invested
so much time becoming expert in oneonly to be told it's> become
obsolete. I suspect thatartist/programmers even more so, in that we>
want to quickly create thethings we imagine, and the overhead of
coding> often requires an bigdown payment.> I think this is the reason
that Eric is emphasising the importance ofthis> particular technology
(and also why some seem so hesitant).> There are many ways to do what
AJAX does - and in that sense it isn'tnew.> Some of the reasons its so
cool is:> 1.) its neat (clean, easy, elegant, efficient, etc…). It
humanreadability> makes it a joy to code.> 2.) it has community
support (unlike SOAP which I think did notcapture the> hearts of
programmers because of its MS-centric syntax).Assuming> code/knowledge
is being shared, this eliminates some of theoverhead> mentioned
above.> 3.) it can drastically improve the user experience. At this
point itworks on> most any browser so its easy to use and it allows
for a moreefficient use of> bandwidth since it can significantly
reduce thenumber of round trips and> amount of data being passed
between theclient and server.> Fellow programmers, write this down,
AJAX rocks, learn it an you willnot be> sorry.> More about it>
here:http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php> A very simple example of AJAX can be seen in my first foray into artwith a> political agenda called "Tax the Rich!" (link below). As faras I can tell> its the only "net art" piece of the bunch, but I'mafraid this is not a> compelling enough reason for people to view itover some of the sillier> entries.> http://tax.cf.huffingtonpost.com> Jason Van Anden>>> On 2/5/06, Pall Thayer>> wrote:> It's not necessarily about 'new' functionality per se. It's more>> about the user experience. It's about dynamic content in a seamless> and> invisible way. It's only what you need when you need it. When you> get a> table containing 500 elements, you don't need elements 200 to> 300 till you> scroll down. Of course, we could display the first 100> elements and then at> the bottom of the page is a 'next' link that> takes you to the next 100. But> let's say I'm on page 3 and I want to> go back and see item 78. The old w!
ay,> I go to the bottom of the page> and click on previous, and again, and then> locate 78. With AJAX, I> simply scroll back up (using two fingers on my> trackpad, which> incidentally isn't 'new' functionality either, just a> better, more> intuitive user experience. If you haven't tried it, it's> better than> it sounds). Try comparing google maps and mapquest and tell us> which> one "feels" better.>> Pall>> On 5.2.200!> 6, at 15:12, judson wrote:>> > true. but why is that particularly> important. either way, the> > client pushes a button and gets a result. if> that result is> > processed on the server or on their machine, there isn't> much> > difference to them. most users would never know, and certainly> >> none would ever care, if there's no benefit other than client side/> >> server side in and of itself.> >> > which is pretty much my point.> client-side technology is generally> > viewed as being more accessible, but> really it's mostly hype, and> > often no significant!
improvement or> simplification over server-side.> >> >> > On !
Feb 5, 2
006, at 12:36 PM, Pall> Thayer wrote:> >> >> No. Once the page is at the clients end,> PHP/Perl/whatever, isn't> >> doing anything.> >>> >> On 5.2.2006, at 11:36,> Plasma Studii wrote:> >>> >>> you can do the very same thing with PHP (or> Perl 10+ years ago).> >>> Ajax, Perl etc still read the whole page, but can> be told to load> >>> only part of it?> >>>> >>>>!> >>>> >>>> >>> Pall Thayer wrote:> >>>> >>>> I think you're m!> issing t> he point. It's not the ability to read or> >>>> write data to the server but> the ability to do so in a way that> >>>> doesn't require reloading the> entire page. Lets say person A in> >>>> Arkansas does something on the page> that rewrites the data in your> >>>> anything.txt file. Person B in Botswana> isn't going to see those> >>>> changes unless they reload the page. AJAX> lets you do the reloading> >>>> in the background. Probably the best use of> AJAX to this day, and> >>>> almost certainly a contributing factor to it's> renewed rise to!
stardom (it's been around for a while) is Google maps.> It has> >>>> revolutionized the way maps are presented on the web. The> interface> >>>> is absolutely brilliant and a huge leap away from the old> method of> >>>> clicking on N, E, S or W to reload an image.> >>>>> >>>>> Palli> >>>>> >>>> On 5.2.2006, at 10:09, Plasma Studii wrote:> >>>>> >>>>>>> You will need to add the xmlrpc classes to your classpath, but> >>>>>> thats> trivial.> >>>>>>!> >>>>>> >>>>> hey eric,> >>>>>> >>>>> probably, i'm just not getting this,> but seems like the same> >>>>> result> >>>>> >>>>> would be SO much easier> with PHP? PHP is super clear, whereas> >>>>> Ajax> >>>>> >>>>> just isn't at> all. It's kinda the diff between intuitive and> >>>>> memorized. most folks> don't even notice how much they memorize(as> >>>>> opposed to understand),> but a lot seem like just arbitrary steps.> >>>>> sorta why reading/writing C> is actually FAR more intuitively> >>>>> comprehensible (though compil!
ers are> usually convoluted) than> >>>>> anything in Flash.> >!

the steps> to write to a file (any file on the web, not just> >>>>> XML) in> >>>>>> >>>>> PHP are clear. seems it would be a lot more "available to> >>>>>> artists"? is there some perk i'm missing here? Seems like> >>>>> bafflingly> convoluted MS design?> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> $FileOpen = fopen( "anything.txt", "w" ); // specify file to write> >>>> to>> >>>>>!> if ( $FileOpen ) {> >>>>> fwrite( $FileOpen, "write whateve!> r you wa> nt, including HTML, XML> >>>>> or javascript code" );> >>>>> }> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that's ALL the code it takes!> >>>>>> >>>>> upload> it to a server running php (and about all of em do) this> >>>>> shows up on> the page (or it's included with osX, a download, etc).> >>>>> >>>>> the code> doesn't. if the page doesn't exist, it'll create it> >>>>> (though there's> also a file_exists() function you can use if you> >>>>> don't want that to> happen) the php could go absolutely> >>>>> anywhere on> >>>>!
your> HTML page. just name it x.php instead of x.html. it's> >>>>> designed with> the coder in mind, not the code (which is why i say> >>>>> an MS thing, they> seem to be incapable of thinking any way but> >>>>> from> >>>>> >>>>> their> own perspective)> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> reminds me of depreciating the tag.> what possible> >>>>> improvement could you make by replacing it?! if it's> off by a> >>>>> pixel one in a thousand times, who cares?! (Web desig!> n just isn't> >>>>> print design and CSS and XHTML are just blatantly dumb> code> >>>>> design) the tag is well worth it just because it works so> clearly> >>>>> and without memorizing. Design utility extends to a lot more> than> >>>>> just Italian coffee makers and German cars. Code is another>> >>>>> appliance.> >>>>> +> >>>>> -> post: [email protected]> >>>>> ->> questions: [email protected]> >>>>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> http://rhizome.org/preferences/> >>>>> subscribe.rhiz> >>>>> -> give:> http://rhizome.org/!
support> >>>>> +> >>>>> Subscribers to Rhizome are> subject to!
the ter
ms set out in the> >>>>> Membership Agreement available> online at http://rhizome.org/info/> >>>>> 29.php> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> –> >>>> Pall Thayer> >>>> [email protected]> >>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> +> >>> -> post:> [email protected]> >>> -> questions: [email protected]> >>> ->> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/> >>> subscribe.rhiz>> !> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> >>> +> >>> Subscriber!> s to Rhi> zome are subject to the terms set out in the> >>> Membership Agreement> available online at http://rhizome.org/info/> >>> 29.php> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >> –> >> Pall Thayer> >> [email protected]> >>> http://www.this.is/pallit> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> –> Pall Thayer>> [email protected]> http://www.this.is/pallit>>>>> +> -> post:> [email protected]> -> questions: [email protected]> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give:> http://rhizome.org/!
support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the> terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available online at> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>>> –Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com> +> -> post: [email protected]> -> questions: [email protected]> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support> +> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php>>>> ***************************************************************************>>> ||http://www.lewislacook.org||> sign up now! poetry, code, forums, blogs, newsfeeds…>>> ________________________________>> What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos>>

–Jason Van Andenhttp://www.smileproject.com
+
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

–
Jason Van Anden
http://www.smileproject.com
sheesh