onClick="javascript:smoke.alert('this is a normal alert');"
... apparently, not.
The 'javascript:' (attempted psuedo protocol), is just acting as a pointless label here.
I also thought we said goodbye to obtrusive JS altogether.
Also, the API isn't great. There's no instance to work with... It doesn't work in IE7 (probably because it doesn't cater for non-W3C events APIs). The source is littered with getElementById calls, and non configurable HTML IDs and classes. And it uses the window's 'load' event to initiate itself, when there's absolutely no need to. There's also 'smoketimeout' polluting the global scope when it could just be a property of the 'smoke' object itself.
Most of that is no doubt due to the fact that it's framework-agnostic, meaning it can't rely on all the things frameworks like jquery do to make it easy to create reliable, unobtrusive javascript.
I don't so much have a problem with the getElementById calls, as that really is the best and quickest way to do things. Even jQuery's $('#some-element') selector is simply calling getElementById('some-element') under the hood and then wrapping it in a jQuery object.
And technically the onClick stuff can still be unobtrusive, as long as the link still works as intended with javascript disabled (i.e. it's a normal link and doesn't have something like href="#".
But all technicalities aside, I totally agree with your sentiment. Almost every site I build now is using jQuery or some other framewor; I'd prefer not to use some library that has to re-implement all the bindings and selectors and browser-specific hacks and work-arounds that are already being included elsewhere in my framework.
Furthermore, if my site is so low-level or small that it can't easily include jQuery, I doubt I'll be worried about replacing or trying to spruce up the standard javascript confirm dialog.
I feel like the alert and confirm modals should not be allowed to be dismissed by clicking outside. Especially confirm: "Destroy all. Yes, No?" -> click outside...nothing.
I wouldn't use it, because it doesn't use the main hotkeys for user interaction on the alert box (enter, space) or the confirm box (enter, space, escape).
I also would have liked it better, if the default functions of alert and confirm would have been overwritten, instead of recreated into an object.
Overwriting the existent functions would have been made it a snap to integrate smoke.js into existing projects.
On the usability tip, why don't you allow making the dialog appear near the user's mouse? Having to move it from the link (or wherever the user's mouse is at the time) to the action buttons is unnecessary.
A counterpoint: I don't like things that appear near my mouse. My mouse is rarely positioned where I'm looking, and anything that appears under my mouse when I'm about to click on something interferes with (and occasionally "steals") normal clicks. The worst is when a dialog pops up with important information, and the OK or Cancel button right under the mouse, just as I was halfway through clicking on something else.
Sorry, but this is the latest entry in obsolete and obtrusive functionality. It's useless for mobile (just tested iOS Safari and Opera), which is the platform you should start with, and it's been proven out to be an annoying hindrance to the user on the desktop.
Don't interrupt CRUD. If you can't trust the user to not perform an irreversible action, then you're doing it wrong.
[+] [-] padolsey|14 years ago|reply
But, I thought this was dead:
... apparently, not.The 'javascript:' (attempted psuedo protocol), is just acting as a pointless label here.
I also thought we said goodbye to obtrusive JS altogether.
Also, the API isn't great. There's no instance to work with... It doesn't work in IE7 (probably because it doesn't cater for non-W3C events APIs). The source is littered with getElementById calls, and non configurable HTML IDs and classes. And it uses the window's 'load' event to initiate itself, when there's absolutely no need to. There's also 'smoketimeout' polluting the global scope when it could just be a property of the 'smoke' object itself.
[+] [-] JangoSteve|14 years ago|reply
I don't so much have a problem with the getElementById calls, as that really is the best and quickest way to do things. Even jQuery's $('#some-element') selector is simply calling getElementById('some-element') under the hood and then wrapping it in a jQuery object.
And technically the onClick stuff can still be unobtrusive, as long as the link still works as intended with javascript disabled (i.e. it's a normal link and doesn't have something like href="#".
But all technicalities aside, I totally agree with your sentiment. Almost every site I build now is using jQuery or some other framewor; I'd prefer not to use some library that has to re-implement all the bindings and selectors and browser-specific hacks and work-arounds that are already being included elsewhere in my framework.
Furthermore, if my site is so low-level or small that it can't easily include jQuery, I doubt I'll be worried about replacing or trying to spruce up the standard javascript confirm dialog.
[+] [-] chopsueyar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rgbrgb|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BillSaysThis|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wulczer|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] georgefox|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] libria|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaumartinez|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chris_engel|14 years ago|reply
I also would have liked it better, if the default functions of alert and confirm would have been overwritten, instead of recreated into an object. Overwriting the existent functions would have been made it a snap to integrate smoke.js into existing projects.
[+] [-] frankil|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chime|14 years ago|reply
Edit: rgbrgb posted http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2748038 about Apprise. It does what smoke.js does and then some. Thanks
[+] [-] consultutah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] workhorse|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beaumartinez|14 years ago|reply
On the usability tip, why don't you allow making the dialog appear near the user's mouse? Having to move it from the link (or wherever the user's mouse is at the time) to the action buttons is unnecessary.
[+] [-] nitrogen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taitems|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] feydr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dav-id|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chopsueyar|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsavimbi|14 years ago|reply
Don't interrupt CRUD. If you can't trust the user to not perform an irreversible action, then you're doing it wrong.
[+] [-] baggachipz|14 years ago|reply