So why don't you simply use a key-value literal?

var params = {
    'slide0001.html': 'Looking Ahead',
    'slide0002.html': 'Forecase',
    ...
};

return params['slide0001.html']; // returns: Looking Ahead

Whether you choose the first or the third option depends on your use case. If you are modeling many different instances of the same type of thing, choose the first. For example, you have a list of people. If you are modeling many different attributes of one thing, choose the third. You can have repeated keys in the first format, but not in the third.

The second option is terrible, and I've yet to find an appropriate use case for it. The reason it's terrible, in addition to being more verbose, is that for single-level JSON, it breaks most libraries' automatic conversion to a dictionary/map. For deeply-nested JSON, it breaks the XPath-like query interface.

This makes it a pain to work with. And if you don't know your keys at compile time, you will want a dictionary or XPath interface, because you won't be able to convert it to a class. It may not seem like a big deal now, but the longer you have a data format, the harder it will be to change.

Array#map()

const data = {"user":[{ "name": "Jhon", "age": "18" }, { "name": "Ted", "age": "20" }]};
console.log(data.user.map(u=>u.name));

You can use array#reduce

var data = [ { "id": "id1", "data": "text" }, { "id": "id2", "data": "text" } ],
    result = data.reduce((r,{id,data}) => (r[id] = {data}, r), {});
console.log(result);

Lean towards option 1, as it's a more expected format.

Option 1 works with JSON as it's designed to be used and therefore benefits from what JSON offers (a degree of human readability, which is good for debugging, and straightforward parsing, which is good for limiting entire categories of bugs to begin with).

Option 2 begrudgingly adopts JSON and subverts many of the benefits. If you don't want human readability, use protobuf or something similar... AIWalker's "CSV"-like approach isn't terrible either. It is marginally better (readable) than splitting objects apart and recombining them. But, this is still not as good (readable) as using JSON "as designed".

Also bear in mind, your API responses are also likely going to be gzipped. Most of the repetition in option 1 will be quickly and transparently condensed over the wire.

As an aside, if you're moving a lot of data, also consider JSONL or paginated results. Pagination can be especially helpful for web clients, as it places natural pauses in the processing, providing a degree of "organic" protection against UI lockups.

This isn't a single JSON object. You have an array of JSON objects. You need to loop over array first and then access each object. Maybe the following kickoff example is helpful:

var arrayOfObjects = [{
  "id": 28,
  "Title": "Sweden"
}, {
  "id": 56,
  "Title": "USA"
}, {
  "id": 89,
  "Title": "England"
}];

for (var i = 0; i < arrayOfObjects.length; i++) {
  var object = arrayOfObjects[i];
  for (var property in object) {
    alert('item ' + i + ': ' + property + '=' + object[property]);
  }
  // If property names are known beforehand, you can also just do e.g.
  // alert(object.id + ',' + object.Title);
}

If the array of JSON objects is actually passed in as a plain vanilla string, then you would indeed need eval() here.

var string = '[{"id":28,"Title":"Sweden"}, {"id":56,"Title":"USA"}, {"id":89,"Title":"England"}]';
var arrayOfObjects = eval(string);
// ...

To learn more about JSON, check MDN web docs: Working with JSON .