The goal of using AJAX for content should be to enhance the user experience, not to make the user experience depend on it.

Benefits of using AJAX over hardcoded depend on the technical aspects of the server and the importance of the AJAX loaded elements.

The idea of loading elements via AJAX, the way you are describing, is loading the minimum HTML so that the user has the main content as soon as possible. Then, once the scripts are loaded you can load the non-main content via AJAX.

This depends on the case. Are comments an essential part of the website?

If they are you might want to include them in the HMTL or at least some of them.

If they aren't you should test how much time you are saving loading that HTML asynchronously. Because using AJAX has also some risks, I can think of:

• The scripts don't load or spend too long loading, so all the content which was going to be loaded via AJAX will not be loaded.
• The AJAX call doesn't respond correctly so the user ends up with none of that content.
• The browser is not loading JavaScript. This is less common but is something to consider.

Imagine comments are made "constantly" so the hardcoded ones can be outdated some minutes after the user receives them. This would be a good situation to use AJAX. The user receives all the content he needs when the page loads and, instead of refreshing the site to see if there are new ones, the site gets the new content for him as soon as it appears.

The goal of using AJAX for content should be to enhance the user experience, not to make the user experience depend on it.

Benefits of using AJAX over hardcoded depend on the technical aspects of the server and the importance of the AJAX loaded elements.

The idea of loading elements via AJAX, the way you are describing, is loading the minimum HTML so that the user has the main content as soon as possible. Then, once the scripts are loaded you can load the non-main content via AJAX.

This depends on the case. Are comments an essential part of the website?

If they are you might want to include them in the HTML or at least some of them.

If they aren't you should test how much time you are saving loading that HTML asynchronously. Because using AJAX has also some risks, I can think of:

• The scripts don't load or spend too long loading, so all the content which was going to be loaded via AJAX will not be loaded.
• The AJAX call doesn't respond correctly so the user ends up with none of that content.
• The browser is not loading JavaScript. This is less common but is something to consider.

Imagine comments are made "constantly" so the hardcoded ones can be outdated some minutes after the user receives them. This would be a good situation to use AJAX. The user receives all the content he needs when the page loads and, instead of refreshing the site to see if there are new ones, the site gets the new content for him as soon as it appears.

The goal of using AJAX for content should be to enhance the user experience, not to make the user experience depend on it.

Benefits of using AJAX over hardcoded depend on the technical aspects of the server and the importance of the AJAX loaded elements.

The idea of loading elements via AJAX, the way you are describing, is loading the minimum HTML so that the user has the main content as soon as possible. Then, once the scripts are loaded you can load the non-main content via AJAX.

This depends on the case. Are comments an essential part of the website?

If they are you might want to include them in the HMTL or at least some of them.

If they aren't you should test how much time you are saving loading that HTML asynchronously. Because using AJAX has also some risks, I can think of:

• The scripts don't load or spend too long loading, so all the content which was going to be loaded via AJAX will not be loaded.
• The AJAX call doesn't respond correctly so the user ends up with none of that content.
• The browser is not loading JavaScript. This is less common but is something to consider.

Also to consider, it might be the case that comments are made constantly so the hardcoded ones can be outdated some minutes after the user receives them.

The goal of using AJAX for content should be to enhance the user experience, not to make the user experience depend on it.

Benefits of using AJAX over hardcoded depend on the technical aspects of the server and the importance of the AJAX loaded elements.

The idea of loading elements via AJAX, the way you are describing, is loading the minimum HTML so that the user has the main content as soon as possible. Then, once the scripts are loaded you can load the non-main content via AJAX.

This depends on the case. Are comments an essential part of the website?

If they are you might want to include them in the HMTL or at least some of them.

If they aren't you should test how much time you are saving loading that HTML asynchronously. Because using AJAX has also some risks, I can think of:

• The scripts don't load or spend too long loading, so all the content which was going to be loaded via AJAX will not be loaded.
• The AJAX call doesn't respond correctly so the user ends up with none of that content.
• The browser is not loading JavaScript. This is less common but is something to consider.

Imagine comments are made "constantly" so the hardcoded ones can be outdated some minutes after the user receives them. This would be a good situation to use AJAX. The user receives all the content he needs when the page loads and, instead of refreshing the site to see if there are new ones, the site gets the new content for him as soon as it appears.