Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Ajax and the Ken Burns Effect 239

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the fun-with-code dept.
An anonymous reader writes "IBM DeveloperWorks has an interesting project posted that shows how to design a client-side slide show using the 'Ken Burns Effect.' From the article: 'If the Web 2.0 revolution has one buzzword, it's Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (Ajax). [...] Here, you discover how to build XML data sources for Ajax, request XML data from the client, and then dynamically create and animate HTML elements with that XML.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ajax and the Ken Burns Effect

Comments Filter:
  • by Bin Naden (910327) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @02:13PM (#15181617)
    I've used Ajax a bit to develop an enterprise application and it just tends to turn into one big mess (perhaps by my own fault but nevertheless ;) ). Is there a completely object-oriented Ajax library out there because this would significantly improve the usability of ajax.
  • This is very true (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @02:15PM (#15181620) Journal
    IF you are going to take the view that you are not going to rely on the client having certain capabilities when are you going to stop?

    Render the page server side as an image? So you presume the client has image capability?

    I think that for to long we have tried to include everyone. Bending over backwards to support crap browsers with broken functions just to make sure nobody was left behind. Well fuck it. At a given point you must just be able to say, "upgrade or our site won't run".

    If you don't the price is going to be that other people can move ahead and use new technologies while you are stuck with an ever dwindling but always present group of people who still use the same software from a decade ago.

    Ask yourselve if this is normal in the real world.

    Old cars can't run on modern petrol. Yet how many gas stations keep an old pump around for cars from before WW2? Try to get some polaroid film from your average camera store. A lp player from a highstreet electronics store.

    Get the picture? So why on earth are we still worried about people using browsers 2 generations out of date.

  • by DarthDevilous (949043) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @02:26PM (#15181647)
    Ah but you see, if HTML were used it would be called AJAH, and that doesn't sound anywhere near as buzzy as AJAX. the X(ML) makes the difference!
  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @02:34PM (#15181669) Homepage
    Javascript will never get the timing right, and it will look tacky.

    Now here's a good Flash animation. [cartoonnetworkla.com] Try doing that with "Web 2.0".

  • by AgNO3 (878843) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @03:18PM (#15181804) Homepage
    The Ken Burns effect was a term coined by Steve jobs with iphoto was launched. The Pan and Scan effect as it is properly called has well been around long before Ken used it. We just associate it with him because most of his Documentaries are about subjects that had only or mostly still images to use in the show. I am Highly amussed now that a Purly Steveism is not a main stream term. If you can show me a use of Ken Burns Effect prior to iPhoto please link me up.
  • by GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @03:43PM (#15181874)
    Everyone Hates Javascript, no one here would ever admit to allowing javascript run on their browsers due to the infinite number of security problems it creates ... or so says nearly everyone who has posted on this website in the last few years.

    We've read this a thousand times in a thousand stories, only fools let javascript operate despite all the incredible things it can do.

    BUT ... rename it as AJAX ... suddenly its all good.

    What a bunch of buzzword suckers you all are.

    AJAX is nothing new, its just a name for using a certain javascript technique.

  • by PietjeJantje (917584) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @07:21PM (#15182527)
    I'm using this technique to animate avatars in the project seen in the sig (that part is not out of Subversion yet). I also tried to avoid XML in the beginning, to avoid overload, for the same reasons as you point out. However, when things start to get more complex, you need to send multiple values and stuff like parameters, and XML is the answer. For really simple stuff, I agree responseText is sufficient. When more starts to get going on, for starters you need to envelop the messages with order/timestamps. At one point you get such a complex string to parse, you're better of using XML, unless you'd like to reinvent the wheel.
  • by caudron (466327) on Saturday April 22, 2006 @08:25PM (#15182733) Homepage
    ...is what happens with al the people who actually need static content to particpate in this supposedly improved New Web Order.

    Think about it from the perspective of a blind man. His screen reader presents the content to him. He makes a choice or otherwise interacts with it. AJAX jumps in and dynamically changes a bit in the middle of the page. Now...how does he know it was changed? Answer? He doesn't. He's excluded by default from this whole "Web 2.0" thing.

    I'm not interested in bringing everyone's experience down to the lowest common denominator, but it's getting kinda bad for people who need 508 compliance [section508.gov] just to be a part of this great new medium.

    If it were some remote corner of the web, I'd keep my mouth shut, but as more sites move to AJAX content, they cease being 508 compliant. And this is a very recent phenomena. Until AJAX (for the most part), the web was essentially static. Changes to a page initiated a postback event and the screen reader was thus informed that a change had occured. Not so anymore.

    This was sort brought to my attention recently as I am redoing a .com (they want it all ASP.NET 2.0-ified) for a fairly large corp and 508 compliance is a pretty big deal...and truthfully it should be. We talk about wheelchair ramps and other physical accomodations, and even computer accessibility, but AJAX is circumventing our current accessibility model.

    We need to either drastically improve the screen reader technology or make ourselves more aware of the poeple we exclude with these "advances".

    Disclaimer: Yes, I know that "Web 2.0" is not directly about AJAX but rather about collaboration, but AJAX is the preferred technology used to implement said collaboration.

    Tom Caudron
    http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]

The more cordial the buyer's secretary, the greater the odds that the competition already has the order.

Working...