Retronym for Non-AJAX Apps?

We’re used to the distinction between “static” and “dynamic” websites. I think it’s fairly well-established that “static” means plain HTML with a possible sprinkling of CSS, while “dynamic” means a website with forms and maybe a bit of Javascript. “Web application” is a more sophisticated, goal-oriented, version of that.

Now that we have the “AJAX” label, what do we call the non-AJAX “dynamic websites” or “web applications”?

A few retronyms spring to mind:

  • The contemptuous: “Click’N’Wait website”
  • The nostalgic: “Classical website”
  • The contrasting: “Unajaxian website”
  • The bottom-line: “Non-sticky website”
  • The hopeful: “Unajaxified website”
  • The meme-inspired: “Not your grandson’s website”
  • The cantankerous: “Usable website”
  • The too-funky: “Old-School website”
  • The witty reference: “Website formerly known as dynamic”
  • The fashionable: ” ’90s chic website”

Do you have any other ideas?

0 thoughts on Retronym for Non-AJAX Apps?

  1. i always thought that, under the somewhat loose common definitions of “static” and “dynamic,” a page that just possessed a form did not constitue dynamism. rather the page actually had to be able to change itself without the lengthy post operation. therefore a form that did active numeric validation on a order number field was no more dynamic than one that didn’t. although the page was utilising a script to check data and provide feedback, it wasn’t really changing the page.

    however, a page that updated the Books selection dropdown after the user had chosen a different Author counted as being dynamic, as the page was changing itself.

    maybe instead of removing the “dynamic” property of the current any-server-interaction-means-a-post pages, we could instead include another adjective for the ajaxian style pages, that encompasses that the page is more than dynamic, it is positively racing. taking your non-sticky retronym (my first encounter with that word by the way!) we could call ajax style pages as “fluid.” this conjures up images of ever changing html, which is pretty much exactly what’s happening.

    and my favourite of your labels? i’d have to be a bit cantankerous today and go for the usable website. mostly because i can forsee a lot of broken sites that just don’t work due to flaws in an implementation of an ajax inspired approach. after all, not much can go wrong with a bit of plain html, the current dynamic sites have more potential for troubles, so it is easy to expect that the next level of complication will introduce a whole raft of unusable sites. but then again, as with the early pioneers of dynamic html, it will likely also produce a few brilliant diamonds that make everyone wish they could do just a good job.

Leave a Reply