Interesting new forum feature ideas?

[Joe]

I was thinking. What about a forum that were based entirely on "shoutboxes" similar to web bot's channel text? The conversations could be displayed in an irc, or bnet like fashion. They could be saved post by post in a mysql database, just like other forum software. basically, the forum would have sections, and topics just like any other forum, but instead of threads/replies in each topic, it'd all be in one, screen-sized shout box kind of thing. i know of a very smooth shuotbox that reqiures no page refreshnig at all, and does all of this already. it could probably be made to work like i have described pretty easily. the forum could still have support for nice, clean looking quoting, code, formatting, etc. itd be kind of like irc or bnet with stats

Good idea..

[Ergot]

Mercury doesn't have that feature, Sigh Dough.   

Then people using Mercury are missing out on some hot AJAX action:

[warz]

What's the irc protocol reference for, joe? Maybe you didn't understand. It'd be a forum - but would update in real-time, similar to a live chat feed. After thinking about this a little, why limit the Ajax functionality to just the posting portion of the forum? Why not allow the main forum section pages, and sub section pages to update the post counts, users online, etc, all in real time?

This is beginning to sound like something that would be pretty ugly, as far as web browsing goes. For anyone that has researched Ajax, you probably have found out that Ajax is not a good thing to be using heavily, and for these purposes. Infact, most channels on efnet (#css, #javascript, #php, etc) will ban you for using the term, even. XMLHttpRequest wasn't meant for this type of intensive abuse, but it can be done.

What problems does 'Ajax' cause? Well, say good bye to the back button being available whenever you want. Good bye url updates incase you would like to copy/paste the current url. There's other downsides to using Ajax, but, with proper design and planning, these downsides can be worked around and maybe equally good alternatives can be created.

Downsides to Ajax aside, this project still sounds very interesting, and I have not seen a single forum like this in existance. People seem to like the idea on several different communities including efnet, bwhacks forums, a few on these forums it looks like, etc. It would be something everyone could, and if it were made properly, would switch to, and use and enjoy. It'd be a long road, most likely including a few fresh restarts along the way. Javascript is my weak area, but it's not difficult. I've already been messing around with XMLHttpRequest, and 'Ajax'-style web dev. It's easy, it just takes prior knowledge and planning for it to turn out how you expect it to. Javascript also requires good knowledge of valid strict html and good css practices, which are easy. Does this project still sound like something that should be pursued? Is this something that maybe a group would enjoy working on, or would be best to keep a single person project? Do you think these downsides could be avoided?

[iago]

I really like the "quick edit" feature of IPB.  You can modify and resubmit a change to your post without ever leaving the page or sending an http request.

AJAX does send a HTTP request.  Unless they do something really weird, a HTTP request has to be sent for any kind of communication with the web server.

[warz]

Specifically, Ajax makes a XMLHttpRequest, and then uses the onreadystatechange property as a pointer to a function that you wish to execute. The function called then may do whatever you like, along the lines of PHP, MySQL and Javascript, without causing the browser to reload.

Here's the code I have written for use on my rafm.org test page. It's very basic, but demonstrates how to use XMLHttpRequest to update a page.

Code: [Select]

function xml_http_post(szAddress, function_callback) {
var xmlHttpReq = false;
var self = this;
   
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
self.xmlHttpReq = new XMLHttpRequest();
} else if (window.ActiveXObject) {
self.xmlHttpReq = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}

self.xmlHttpReq.open('POST', szAddress, true);
self.xmlHttpReq.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');

self.xmlHttpReq.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (self.xmlHttpReq.readyState == 4) {
function_callback(self.xmlHttpReq.responseText);
}
};

self.xmlHttpReq.send("mode=post");
}

function update_page(szData){
document.getElementById('modify').innerHTML = szData;
}

and, the element being referenced by the update_page function would be a <div>.

Edit: gross, forum isn't preserving tabs.

[Sidoh]

Specifically, Ajax makes a XMLHttpRequest, and then uses the onreadystatechange property as a pointer to a function that you wish to execute. The function called then may do whatever you like, along the lines of PHP, MySQL and Javascript, without causing the browser to reload.

iago and I both have jobs doing webdev (well, he quit to go work at Symantec, but he did)!  He knows.

MyndFyre does too, but I don't think he's posted in this topic (at least not recently).  I know he's used tons of ajax before.

To be honest, both of the disadvantages you listed for AJAX aren't really a problem if you don't use it in every damn case it's possible.  For something like a quick edit or clicking on a star to change the rating of something (without reloading the page), why would anyone need to use the back button or have a descriptive URL of the action that's being done behind the scene?

[warz]

iago and I both have jobs doing webdev (well, he quit to go work at Symantec, but he did)!  He knows.

MyndFyre does too, but I don't think he's posted in this topic (at least not recently).  I know he's used tons of ajax before.

To be honest, both of the disadvantages you listed for AJAX aren't really a problem if you don't use it in every damn case it's possible.  For something like a quick edit or clicking on a star to change the rating of something (without reloading the page), why would anyone need to use the back button or have a descriptive URL of the action that's being done behind the scene?

Well, those were just examples that came to mind. I often find myself pasting forum urls. Anyways, you using those two examples kind of makes me think you've missed the idea. My idea was for the much broader aspects of the forum itself to be updated in 'real time' using XMLHttpRequest methods. For example, while staring at the forum index - post counts would rise, users logged in would change, newest topic/reply would change, etc all without reloading. This would basically just be requesting the page entirely over, but instead of the typical refresh, itd just be through XMLHttpRequest. So, I ask again - is this beginning to sound like a "bad use" of Ajax? I don't really consider this to be a bandwidth problem, because it could potentially (after some conditioning) eliminate the need to refresh the page, for whatever reasons. It would basically equal the average amount of bandwidth used while browsing any forum, anyways. (maybe even come out to be less)

[Sidoh]

I didn't read your idea until now.

I think that would be really stupid, if that's what you're asking.  I already (indirectly) answered that.  It makes things immensely more complicated and an idle browser would constantly be churning data.  Pressing the refresh button is easy.  It's not only beginning to be "bad use" of AJAX, it far surpasses it.  AJAX is a very slick technique, but it shouldn't be overused.

The constant refreshing of individual elements on a page just seems asinine when applied to something like a forum.  You can never be assured that the page you're seeing is a true representation of what's currently in the database unless the refresh rate was set to some small interval, which would murder bandwidth for bigger forums.  The only way you can be sure is to refresh the page, which I suspect would be done on an occasional to frequent basis depending on the user.

[iago]

.......which would murder bandwidth for bigger forums.....

Not if you only sent what's changed, every couple seconds.. typically you'd be sending "no change"

[Sidoh]

Not if you only sent what's changed, every couple seconds.. typically you'd be sending "no change"

Then you'd have to have a crapload of things that stored the state of the page for each individual user... I suppose you could update by some central time interval, but I don't think that would work very well either.

Regardless, it's a dumb idea, I think.

[iago]

Not if you only sent what's changed, every couple seconds.. typically you'd be sending "no change"

Then you'd have to have a crapload of things that stored the state of the page for each individual user... I suppose you could update by some central time interval, but I don't think that would work very well either.

Regardless, it's a dumb idea, I think.

It IS a dumb idea, indeed, but with some kind of caching method it might not be the most horrible

[Ender]

You know how they have Word of the Day and stuff like that? Well, forums should allow for a "porno pic of the day". The first forum to do that will conquer the world.

[Ersan]

Something tells me there are already at least 500 that do.

[abc]

My school does 'Word of the Day' lol.

[iago]

We need a porno word of the day.

"Today's word: penis"