I'd like to add a map of countries to my website where the user can choose a specific country by clicking on it. http://code.google.com/apis/chart/docs/gallery/map_charts.html has the looks i want, but it's not possible to underlay the countries with links, afaik(Besides lacking pan/zoom, nice to have). The interactive map(Geo Map) allows more options but it's based on flash which i'd like to avoid(Not sure if links would be possible anyway).
I've played with shapefiles/polylines and google-maps but thats too complex(Lots of data for the polylines, far too much for the simple functionality i need).
Do you know of alternatives which are similarly easy to implement as the google-api-options?
Thx
Christian
I would, if I may, suggest to check out Highmaps, from the people behind Highcharts (myself included). It's 100% Javascript based, and designed to get you up and going with very little effort. You can easily implement your own click-based events.
Highmaps is free for non-commercial use, works great with mobile browsers (full touch support) and old IE down to IE6. It also has support for advanced dynamic features like drilldown and rich tooltips, and is very customizable.
We supply a map collection with over 350 maps, to get you started quickly. The maps are optimized for size to keep things lightweight.
Related
Why Neto/Shopify use their own templating language instead using any popular popular language ?
When you have your own templating language you have full freedom to implement or limit the logic of the language to meet your needs.
You don't need to wait for a third party update in order to implement new stuff or objects.
Why do you think Samsung creates clones of google apps on their phones? To create an experience that they can control in some way and if they like to change or add something to do so and not to wait for google to do so. ( and some other things but that is outside the scope of this question )
Since liquid was a Tobias Lütke creation ( co-founder and CEO at Shopify ) and now is an Open Source project it was written in specific fashion in order to meet specific needs and those needs seems to be fitting for Shopify and other platforms as well.
Being popular doesn't mean being better! This is the wrong way to go.
WordPress is the most popular platform, but is it the best one - NO! There are a lot of hole provided by plugins, poorly written themes and some times core issues. While it's easy to use and extendable it opens a lot of doors for issues if you don't manage it properly.
Beats by Dre is the most popular headphones and quite expensive, does they sound as good as the price tag put on them - NO! You can buy the same quality headphones ( even better ) for less, but you are paying for the brand.
Creating new languages in the coding world is ALWAYS a good thing It might be a chore to learn it if it becomes a standard but that means that it provided something that the other popular languages didn't and this pushes the coding world forward. It's a much better alternative than to be in a standstill like when we had only jQuery and there were no new stuffs to excite the developers.
Now we have so much different things that you can choose the direction you like to go and you won't be able to learn all of them even if you try, which is a great thing to a developer who likes to grow.
Conclusion:
Being different is OK as long as that fits your needs and you are not doing it just because it's popular to be different. ( so true IRL now too :D )
This reasoning from their Github Wiki lists some of the reasons. Why Liquid Templating Engine ?
Liquid is a template engine which was crafted for very specific
requirements
It has to have simple markup and beautiful results. Template engines which don't produce good looking results are no fun to use.
It needs to be non-evaling and secure. Liquid templates are made so that users can edit them. You don't want your server running code
that your users wrote.
It has to be stateless. The compile and render steps have to be separate, so that the expensive parsing and compiling can be done
once; later on, you can just render it by passing in a hash with local
variables and objects.
It needs to be able to style emails as well as HTML.
I am writing web application based on ArcGIS API for javascript. So far I managed to create empty map using this tutorial and write some code which visualizes some data.
The basemaps which ArcGIS offer are quite nice and I would like to use them, but they represent whole world and what I need is basemap of just a single country. What's the best/easiest way to do it? I tried using ArcGIS Online to edit basemap but the don't offer good options for cutting single country.
I found some links out there but they aren't solving my problem (or my knowledge is to small to understand them), for example https://developers.arcgis.com/javascript/latest/sample-code/basemap-custom/index.html
If you like the look and feel of the Esri basemaps, you don't want to make your own. That's certainly technically possible, but requires a greater command of ArcMap and publishing services -- and isn't what you're really looking for. And basemap tiles shouldn't be edited, even ones you publish yourself, since the difficulty of doing that well is just not worth the effort.
Instead, you can restrict the JavaScript map to prevent panning outside your area of interest. Whenever the user moves to an extent that exceeds allowed values, the code automatically resets the extent to the allowed limit, and they can't move outside it. (You can similarly restrict zoom levels so they won't even be able to zoom out further than the view of your area of interest.)
For code details, see existing answers on Restricting base map on specific extent in ArcGIS API for JavaScript 3? (GIS.StackExchange)
I need a 3D engine for a very specific task in Artificial Intelligence, and I'd like some input.
The first part is the trivial one - basically, all I need is a FPS engine (3rd person would be good, too), such that it allows me to navigate a room and interact with objects (if you have Java and Windows, I'm looking for something similar to the Give Challenge, but a little more up-to-date). Physics would be nice, but is not a must.
Now, the non-trivial part would be: I need to impose a virtual grid over this room, such that at any moment I can say "the player is located at B5 - now he moved to B6", and so on. I need to redirect this information to another system (namely, one which will give the player instructions about what to do) and, at the same time, send messages to the player, so I must be able to have a single point through which the game logic passes through; also, I'd love not having to write my own collision detection and such.
So far, I've tried:
the Source SDK: it seems a little overkill (since I'm not really planning to shoot anyone, at least half the code base is useless to the task), and since I'm not really a Windows developer, I'm spending too much time with the "easy" stuff (such as getting VS up and running). Plus, cross-platform would be really nice.
Blender game engine: while this worked decently, the interaction model seems a little weird, and some easy stuff (such as making sure the camera stays inside the scene or showing the mouse on screen) gets too weird too soon.
Crystalspace 3D: I've tried their demos, but it looks a little old-fashioned, and since that was one of the problems of previous engines (it's easier to get volunteers when your game looks nice) I'd like to try something else.
Now, maybe I'm asking a little too much for a single software, but I'd love some input. Can anyone suggest me an alternative? Or should I give one of the previous ones a second chance?
Try the UDK. All of the things you request are present, and it's free for personal/noncommercial projects. Here are some highlights:
Modern looking. The UDK features an intuitive-ish visual material design system, post-processing effects, Scaleform Gfx UIs from Autodesk, and more.
A visual scripting interface called Kismet that can control gameplay elements, the camera, and more.
UnrealScript, a scripting language similar in syntax to C, C++, Java, that gives you the ability to extend existing functionality or create your own.
Comprehensive documentation available on UDN.
Lots of community support outside of Epic, in places such as Polycount, Eat3d, 3dbuzz, and more.
Basically, "and more".
If what you're looking for is a professional, free (as in beer) engine that will allow you to focus primarily or solely on your differentiating gameplay features, Epic has set the bar high.
I know they are, but my co-worker doesn't believe me. He keeps telling me that Google crawls the inside content and caches it just fine. According to Google, it does crawl them, but doesn't guarantee doing it properly.
Any thoughts why frames are bad for public web sites?
There are various usability and accessibility issues with frames:
link can open in the frame it is enclosed in (e.g. a side pane);
can break the forward/backward navigation;
difficult to bookmark;
are not easily searchable (likely to see the content in Google, etc.);
break on browsers like Lynx, that are console/terminal based;
difficult to size properly (e.g. consuming height on widescreen monitors for banner frames);
can break with screen readers and magnifiers (for blind users and visual impaired users);
See http://www.angelfire.com/super/badwebs/ for an example of what not to do.
Frames are more difficult to bookmark and, therefore, more difficult to share with others.
http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/frames/goodorbad.html
IFrames (like HTML tables) are not bad. However, people were abusing them quite a lot, thus giving them the bad name.
IFrames do represent a good concept - single visual representation of documents coming from different sources, while keeping the DOM trees properly separated and isolated.
The problem arises when a script in one of the DOM trees needs to access the elements in another tree. Or when people want to reference the document location, which happens to be the URL of the root document, and fail to realize they need to location of the secondary document.
But the biggest problem with frames is that there are sites that want to encapsulated other sites in frame and trick the user to think they are interacting with the framed site, while in fact interacting with the outer one. This is the primary reason why most websites will employ some form of frame-busting scripts for their login pages.
Update: It's Friday and we need some fun, so here's the (obligatory) link to Jeff's post on frames-busting-busters-busting... :-)
At the beginning ...
The idea behind framesets is great. It's alive and kicking today; check StackOverflow's left side panel, or the header. They are fixed divs, which is basically the same thing as having frames, although a lot more flexible.
The very concept of keeping some part while changing another is simply necessary by the logic of webpages. We need something to stay where it was (typically navigation) while we go through a lot of details in the main area. Framesets served this purpose very well, they were easy to use and fully supported by all browsers, meaning 3 at that time (Netscape, IE, Opera).
Then we scorched the sky
The real, practical problems with frames had nothing to do with their basic concept. Instead, it was us being only human. I followed this whole debate very closely so believe me when I say these were the real charges against frame technology:
Designers hated them. Yes, that was the deadliest punch. Everything looked square and straight. They hated it. They wanted arcs and image backgrounds and rounded borders. Now they have it in CSS3 - guess what, they're drawing squares. #whatever
Programmers had trouble with them. It was inconvenient to follow the logic of frames, and you had to do some extra work. I mean, some. Today it's a lot harder to create AJAX solutions for the same problem, but no one complains. #whatever
Websites could include one another. This was painful for some site owners because they worked hard on something and another fella used it as own content. Later, they invented same origin policy, but it was way after starting to hate frames. Content stealing is still an issue today, absolutely unrelated to whether we have frames or not. #whatever
Back button worked differently. Yes, it was a bit annoying. But it was not the frame concept's fault, again: it was browsers who did this to us. Could have been solved easily, but nah, browsers kept going back one by one, not providing the site a way to implement its own "step back" method, and alas, this is still happening today. #whatever
So instead of coming up with a solution, the world's web developers decided to hate frames. They ditched it, and now we live in a world where there are lots of better solutions - but with a lot more effort. This was not the only feature going thru the hate-ditch-reinvent-love cycle; see vertical centering and flexbox, aka the table tag debate - and it will happen many more times because it's always easier to point fingers at something than to learn why it's great.
I don't hate frames; don't miss them either, they belong to a somewhat outdated world of web. But they were a good solution for something, and there's a chance we'll see something similar in the future just as CSS grids came back to implement what table layouts did before. The same community who hates the old solution will happily embrace the new and tell you why it's not the same at all.
I think this story has a single takeaway:
Implementations come and go.Concepts stay and evolve.
Depending on what you want to do, most things done with frames can be done with CSS. CSS stylesheets are compatible with all MODERN browsers, meaning your website will look the same if using firefox, chrome, or IE 7(with some tweaks). Also backward-compatibility is not a concern as users can view the content even with CSS off (where as a website using frames and without a frameless version of the site will be useless to a user with an old browser), it just won't be as stylized. It's also quite easy to learn, and once you get the hang of it you'll wonder why you haven't learned it in the first place.
I know this is an old thread but..
Been using Frames almost all my life and I think they are great. I still have a few websites using frames and I cannot understand why they are being droppped. Read all of the comments above and disagree with most of them. Problem is most people never bothered to overcome the issues.
Link can open in the frame it is enclosed in (e.g. a side pane);
Yes it can, but if you do it properly it does not matter. Frames can in fact be very useful for this precise reason, as clicking on a link will only refresh the frame the link it pointing to, not the entire webpage. In the days of dialup modems at very slow speeds this used to be extremely useful to save on bandwidth and make webpages appear superfast. Dont forget, there are still people around the world today (albeit not many) that have very limited internet connectivity at very slow speeds. (people on sailboats in the middle of oceans, those die hards that dial into the internet using HF radio. Oh and those that live in war zones that revert back to poor mobile phone signals, or possibly even need to dial into the internet in another contry using their infrared connections on mobile phones via a modem)
can break the forward/backward navigation.
Yes it can, but if you do it properly it wont.
difficult to bookmark
again very easy to overcome, requires very little additional work, but can be easily overcome
are not easily searchable (likely to see the content in Google, etc.);
break on browsers like Lynx, that are console/terminal based;
Already covered by somebody else earlier. Personally I have never even heard of Lynx (apart from the deodarant). In fact it used to be quite useful that pages werent searchable when you did not want to get spammed by bots searching for email addresses... Unfortunately Google or somebody figured out how to do it.
Difficult to size properly (e.g. consuming height on widescreen monitors for banner frames);
Clearly whoever wrote this has hardly any experience of using frames. This was exactly why I used frames because I could make it work on any screensize in what some would refer to as Fluid views on modern web design
can break with screen readers and magnifiers (for blind users and visual impaired users);
I suppose it can if screen reading software and maginfiers are cheap and rubbish and dont know what they are doing, probably them that complained about it, but there are others that manage this easily.
The only argument that I think makes sense, is that people were abusing them. Now I would not know how that was done, as I am not in that game, but I suppose it would be easy to use frames to show a copy of lets say a financial payment page inside another another frame which is completely hidden to make it look like the user is on the correct page. Therefore conning users out of their beer tokens. But I believe more modern webbrowsers have been updated to overcome these issues and not allow re-direction where encryption certificates are used.
I can therefore understand why they would want to restrict the use of frames, but dont understand why they need to completely remove what is a pretty good bit of tech. (Bit like saying we are going to stop people from using 0 when they do math as it causes can sometimes cause problems when you add many 0's together.)
I still have some websites that use frames and wonder when I am going to have to re-code them one day.
PS. also note that google calendar and youtube allow one to imbed pages into websites and both of these use iframes.
I am trying to figure out which widget development platform is superior. I want a cross-browser widget and so I a thought either the Google or Yahoo solution will be best. They both seem to be using the same technologies - JavaScript, HTML, XML, etc.
Any thoughts on which is a better platfrom in terms of development, performance and any other unmentioned factors?
Personally I've seen a presentation from Christain Heilmann a Yahoo Developer Evangelist, and what Yahoo are doing with widgets, especially putting a framework in place so you can install widgets onto Yahoo's homepage is pretty cool. I'd recommend to look at Yahoo's stuff further go to their developer network. Also Christian's talk availible here, I would say gives a good overview of it.
Yahoo Widgets doesn't really "use HTML". They have an object (Web) that you can use to embed an HTML page, but you usually don't make widgets with HTML.
It's also not possible to make the Web object transparent, so it will be an ugly rectangle on your widget :)