I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
(IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
In article <8at1h7hdcgb4828ejh9v3rj5lki0b86...@4ax.com>,
Zilbandy <z...@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
> (IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
When I have this problem, I just tell them to refresh and how to do it. You cannot worry too much about the management of other people's browsers. In one case, I do put a notice as youy describe and even give instructions on how to refresh with key commands etc. But this is for a special set of pages I use to communicate with a company, for them to look artwork I have made for them, altered for them etc. For public webpages, at least imo, do nothing at all.
2012-01-14 5:36, Zilbandy wrote:
> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end.
It would be normal if _you_ didn't see the changes before doing full refresh (e.g., Ctrl+Shift+F5 on Firefox). The reason is that when you make edits in short invervals, the browser uses a cached version. In the situation you describe, it could be a browser malfunction. Browsers are known to keep using cached copies of files relating to an HTML document even if the HTML document itself is refreshed.
> There are
> others she says also don't see the changes.
That sounds odd. But this could mean that some people are visiting the page when you make the pages and do not see the change immediately when you make it. That's normal. That's how things are supposed to be. Browsers are not supposed to keep polling a server once a second to see whether the HTML document or any associated image or stylesheet or some other resource just changed.
> It seems like I'd be better off
> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
There doesn't seem to be anything special cache-wise on the page. The analyzer at http://redbot.org says:
- The resource last changed 2 days 1 hr ago.
- This response allows all caches to store it.
That's fine.
<z...@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
>I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
>message from her that the page is not showing the new information.
The moment you start managing pages for anyone other than yourself,
you are into the land of the "users". They are the most cunning
people, and will find ways to confound you. On the other had, they are
great at finding each and every pernickety mistake that you make.
In this case, your friend may visit the page, then never turn their
system off (suspend/hibernate, or just plain "leave it on"). So when
they come back, they will always see the page that they loaded weeks
ago, in the same way that the painting in my living room never changes
no matter how often I leave the room and turn the lights out. They
will omit details like this when they explain the "problem" to you.
A colleague of mine coined the word "userspeak" to describe the
language used by users to make problem determination difficult (e.g.
"It blew up" or "It doesn't work")
You could add some JavaScript to reload the page if the time elapsed
since it was last loaded exceeds a certain value. I couldn't, because I'm rubbish at JavaScript, but others can help.
> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
> (IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
Gecko browsers (Firefox, SeaMonkey, Fennec, etc) have cache controls as
described below.
> Compare the page in the cache to the page on the network:
> * Every time I view the page: Select this if you want the browser to
> compare a web page to the cache every time you view it.
> * When the page is out of date: Select this if you want the browser
> to compare a web page to the cache when the page is determined by
> the server to have expired.
> * Once per session: Select this if you want the browser to compare a
> web page to the cache once for each time you start the browser.
> * Never: Select this if you do not want the browser to compare
> cached information to the network.
If your friend is using a Gecko browser, she might have selected the
"Never" option. Or she might instead have selected the "When the page
is out of date" option, which is the same as "Never" for pages have no
expiration date.
In the latter case, you might want to set an expiration date for each
page via an HTTP header. However, that means (1) you must anticipate
the next update, (2) you must always modify the expiration date on each
update, and (3) some search engines will delete ignore the page after
the expiration date.
Zilbandy wrote:
> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
No, but there are solutions using HTTP, given a not completely misconfigured/borken browser:
The HTTP response for that URI already contains the `Content-Length', `ETag' and `Last-Modified' header fields, which is good. You want to consider adding other fields, like `Cache-Control', with fitting values.
Other than that, what is left for your friend is to use a working browser and (you to help them) configure its cache settings properly. For example, some (all?) versions of Internet Explorer have the most stupid default setting of 1024 MB cache size and only to check "Automatically" when a resource has changed, which usually fails to have an effect. Reducing the cache size to, say, 42 MB and setting "check if newer" setting to "Always" helps then.
PointedEars
--
> If you get a bunch of authors […] that state the same "best practices"
> in any programming language, then you can bet who is wrong or right...
Not with javascript. Nonsense propagates like wildfire in this field.
-- Richard Cornford, comp.lang.javascript, 2011-11-14
Swifty wrote:
> You could add some JavaScript to reload the page if the time elapsed
> since it was last loaded exceeds a certain value.
> I couldn't, because I'm rubbish at JavaScript, but others can help.
I could help in that area, too, but I will not, because this is a really
bad idea. What about users without client-side script support?
IOW: You are trying to treat the symptoms here with an analgesic that is scarce and has side-effects. Use the readily available cure against the disease instead.
PointedEars
-- When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).
> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
> (IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
IF (I stress the word IF) your server supports php and IF it's configured to interpret php without needing the .php suffix then all you need to do is add the following lines to the very top of the calendarofevents.htm page...
<?php
//Set no caching
header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT");
header("Last-Modified: " . gmdate("D, d M Y H:i:s") . " GMT");
header("Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate");
header("Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0", false);
header("Pragma: no-cache");
?>
... if it works, the page won't be cached and it will solve your issue, if it doesn't work you'll just see the above lines printed out at the top of the page in your browser.
2012-01-15 12:32, Andy wrote:
> Worth it for a quick 5 minute test?
Did you test it? Are you sure it makes *every* user use refresh button?
(Just making the best effort you can to prevent all caching does not mean that you can solve a given problem, and it usually indicates lack of understanding of caching.)
Swifty wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:29:32 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedE...@web.de> wrote:
>> What about users without client-side script support?
> They'll be no worse off, so overall the world will be a happier place.
You are mistaken. If you do not cure the illness, they will experience the very same problem as the people who use browsers without client-side script support.
On the other hand, if there is client-side script support, a refresh can occur in the midst of using the Web site, which is ultimately detrimental to its usability as well.
AISB, a really bad idea.
PointedEars
-- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
Andy wrote:
> "Zilbandy" […] wrote:
>> I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
>> message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
>> use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
>> my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
>> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
>> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
>> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
>> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
>> (IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
>> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
>> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
> IF (I stress the word IF) your server supports php and IF it's configured
> to interpret php without needing the .php suffix then
… the Web site will run rather slowly, because all resources will need to be parsed by PHP. A Really Bad Idea.
> all you need to do is add the following lines to the very top of the
> calendarofevents.htm page...
> <?php
> //Set no caching
> header("Expires: Mon, 26 Jul 1997 05:00:00 GMT");
> header("Last-Modified: " . gmdate("D, d M Y H:i:s") . " GMT");
> header("Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate");
> header("Cache-Control: post-check=0, pre-check=0", false);
> header("Pragma: no-cache");
Not allowing the resource to be cached *at all* is ultimately detrimental to loading speed. Do not do that.
> ?>
> ... if it works, the page won't be cached and it will solve your issue, if
> it doesn't work you'll just see the above lines printed out at the top of
> the page in your browser.
> Worth it for a quick 5 minute test?
A better wheel has been invented already. RTFM.
PointedEars
-- Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk>
Swifty wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:29:32 +0100, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedE...@web.de> wrote:
>> What about users without client-side script support?
> They'll be no worse off, so overall the world will be a happier place.
You are mistaken. If you do not cure the illness, they will experience the very same problem as the people who use browsers with client-side script support.
On the other hand, if there is client-side script support, a refresh can occur in the midst of using the Web site, which is ultimately detrimental to its usability as well.
AISB, a really bad idea.
PointedEars
-- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300d...@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)
On Jan 13, 10:36 pm, Zilbandy <z...@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
> Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
> (IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
> putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
> page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
Oprah has her name on lots of things, but I don't think this has ever
included a web browser; there is, however, one called Opera.
Netscape and Mozilla browsers have always called the button in
question the "reload" button rather than "refresh", but everybody
seems to refer to it by the M$IE-ism "refresh" anyway, even more so
than other Micro$oftisms like "favorites" for bookmarks have entered
the popular vernacular in preference to the terms used in other
browsers.
> ..., but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
> others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
> the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
> every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
> using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
> Any thoughts will be appreciated.
Make it painful for your customer(s) to be stupid. Every time they
complain about missing changes and you must tell them how use one of the
most basic features of a browser, charge them at least an hour for the
waste of time.
<z...@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote:
>I "manage" a page for a friend and a couple of times a year I get a
>message from her that the page is not showing the new information. I
>use WS_FTP to upload new files to the server and everything works on
>my end, but she doesn't get updates showing on her end. There are
>others she says also don't see the changes. I always tell her to find
>the "refresh" button and push that. She forgets about it just about
>every time I change page content. Is there a solution to the problem
>using html that will work in the main 5 browsers I try to support?
>(IE, FF, Oprah, Safari, Chrome) It seems like I'd be better off
>putting a statement on the web site suggesting people to refresh their
>page, but that sounds like a bad idea to me.
Opinions:
"Please Use Your Refresh Button" in tiny print at the top of the
page.... What does it hurt?
Javascript to refresh the browser... How many don't have javascript
support? Or have it turned off? I think less than the users your
having trouble with.
You could use headers to tell thr browser not to cache the content -
means slower page loads, but you can't have everything.
Of course with PHP you can do all kinds of things:
Session/cookies to track when the browser last loaded the page and
have it load without cache after a number of days.
Above but have the code check the page's last changed date. If it
doesn't match that in the cookie then on next load it without cache.
<no@Error400$$$.No.Sight.Com> wrote:
>Opinions:
>"Please Use Your Refresh Button" in tiny print at the top of the
>page.... What does it hurt?
Whilst it may do no harm, it will also do little good. Things that
don't change are eventually not seen by most people. Think of that
crack in the ceiling...
Every time I logon to our departmental server I'm presented with a
reminder. Whilst I have a vague idea that it has to do with what I can
do with the server, I couldn't give you specifics. It is an almost
100% waste of space and resources (admittedly, little of either).
When I have messages that I want people to read, and which will be
presented to them regularly, I use randomly selected variations, so
that the message catches the eye; different
colour/font/size/position/words/etc.
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:43:28 -0500, Michael Joel
><no@Error400$$$.No.Sight.Com> wrote:
>>Opinions:
>>"Please Use Your Refresh Button" in tiny print at the top of the
>>page.... What does it hurt?
>Whilst it may do no harm, it will also do little good. Things that
>don't change are eventually not seen by most people. Think of that
>crack in the ceiling...
>Every time I logon to our departmental server I'm presented with a
>reminder. Whilst I have a vague idea that it has to do with what I can
>do with the server, I couldn't give you specifics. It is an almost
>100% waste of space and resources (admittedly, little of either).
>When I have messages that I want people to read, and which will be
>presented to them regularly, I use randomly selected variations, so
>that the message catches the eye; different
>colour/font/size/position/words/etc.
We are talking of a refresh reminder - I don't see it warrants this
much thought. Those who don't see the new content but know it is there
will have a reminder as they scan the page trying to find it. The
other purpose is so when the user calls you can say - 'Did you see the
note at the top of the page?'
On the other hand I like the PHP page compare idea much better but
they are all options and depending on how much time one wishes to use
any will have some effect. Like usual - the more you put into it, the
more you get out - well almost, I have spent countless hours on the
computer putting in what I thought was constructive work only to find
it was actually an unusable waste of time... Ahh technology - instant
gratification with delayed realization.
