[RFC|Merged] AJAX

[Oleg]

propose to make quite a lot of these operations use AJAX.

Please make sure the ajax operations are actually more usable than the non-ajax operations...

(An example of something unusable would be lightboxes/image galleries where the user can only return to the page by *mouse clicking* a tiny X in an arbitrary location on the page.)

[callumacrae]

How about CAPTCHA configuration? It's a pain to use, how it is at the moment.

[imkingdavid]

(An example of something unusable would be lightboxes/image galleries where the user can only return to the page by *mouse clicking* a tiny X in an arbitrary location on the page.)

That has always annoyed me when sites did that... I should be able to exit just by clicking anywhere off of the image or by pressing Esc.

I'd just like to say that there, of course, must be a non-JavaScript alternative!

Even though the number of people who browse without javascript enabled is generally low, I have to agree that this should be done in all cases, no matter how much of a pain it will be to have to test everything twice any time a change is made (once with and once without js enabled). Smartphones and other mobile browsers sometimes have trouble with some javascript functions, and also many people use things like the NoScript addon in Firefox that disables js by default.

[callumacrae]

No actual features are being added, it's just adding stuff to existing features, so it will work with js disabled as it always did.

Could someone move this to 3.1? I've completed pretty much everything on the original list, so will definitely be done in time.

~Callum

[igorw]

Any objections to moving it to 3.1? Nils, Oleg?

[Oleg]

I would prefer to move 3.2 rfcs to 3.1 when the respective patches get merged. Is there a benefit to having these rfcs in 3.1 earlier that I'm overlooking?

[naderman]

It would suggest that we intend to merge them if they are finished in time. I'd keep it as [RFC] as opposed to [RFC|Accepted] indicating, that it'll be moved to 3.2 if not finished in time.

[Oleg]

I suppose we can do that, certainly some of the 3.1 rfcs have no code at all which makes them worse off than rfcs with partial implementations.

[callumacrae]

Should subsilver2 use the AJAX features? I vote no, but that might just be because I'm lazy.

~Callum

[Oleg]

One of the reasons people brought up for using subsilver was because they considered it "lighter" than prosilver.

With eye to that argument I would say don't add ajax to subsilver until someone requests it, and if you do make very sure it impacts performance including perceived performance as little as possible.