FIrstly, Paul is correct – I wasn’t offended his comment. I’m sure if he were to try and offend me, he wouldn’t have suggested a possible work around and complimented one of my other posts (which I still need to rewrite!)

Secondly, Paul is again correct, as this isn’t really a “beginners post” either. Although there is nothing in the code which to me seems “advanced”, the style of the post, and depth of the explanations assumes a knowledge of the used technologies.

As I’m sure that anyone who posts any sort of code online can testify, there is always the “risk” of being “criticized”. In many cases, these “criticisms” are what push us to become better at what we do, as they help to either fill holes in our own knowledge, or push us to find better solutions, where better can mean more accessible, usable, faster, cleaner code etc.

When developing for the web, there is always a tradeoff between these factors and time/cost. Especially with the huge range of browsers, users and devices, it’s almost impossible to have a single, one size fits all solution without the huge investment in time/money.

I’ve updated the post to include a little disclaimer to avoid any further confusion (clearly mentioning it only took me a few minutes to write this code wasn’t enough of a disclaimer!)

I don’t actually remember writing this comment it’s that long ago, but I stand by what I wrote. I don’t see any ‘this is a starter post’ or ‘do not use this in production’ statements in the post and I firmly believe that all code should strive to be usable by everyone in any environment (i.e. without relying on anything client side). That’s all I was getting at. I even offered thoughts on how it could potentially work with the JS as ‘icing on the cake.’

I don’t believe that Damian was offended by my thoughts, but if you were, in any way, I apologise!

As for Paul N., if you’re going to start picking apart what someone posts, when it’s an obvious starter’s guide, why not publish your own version, rather than trying to show how smart you are.
What a jerk.

Thanks again Damian

I agree that if thi was using in a “real” website then there would need to be an alternative, then the method you suggest is a good option. If you ever get round to extending thi with your suggestion then please do share.

I need to rewrite parts of the CI autocomplete article based on some of the comments to make it a bit clearer. it doesn’t actually load all those classes as you do it in the base file which won’t get executed (definately need to rewrite that part as you’re not the onlt one to think that would happen)

Aside, you might want to check http://www.roomguide.co.uk/ with JS off and try to run a search!

Best of luck and keep up the dev / articles though! (the CI autocomplete one is great – though you might want to remind people not to use this in their production code, no sense in loading all those classes each time online!)