Re: OSX on Intel Could Destroy Microsoft

In article <mr-047C93.08501525112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sandman <mr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <znu-74F900.00203325112005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ZnU
> <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Sherlock is a great example of using the native UI for web
> > > applications. It's too bad that Sherlock has fallen under the rug
> > > at Apple. I would have wanted a Sherlock 4 that had a built in
> > > Online Shopping interface that web sites could adhere to. One
> > > click on "our webshop" would either take you to the web version
> > > if you're on a PC, but would open the Webshop channel in Sherlock
> > > and point it to the site, and the channel had everything built
> > > in.
> >
> > Well, this kind of thing is going to be entirely independent of web
> > vs. desktop UI. Standard web services APIs will eventually emerge
> > for such things, that can be used by desktop apps, other web sites,
> > or whatever.
>
> I hope so.
>
> > > I really don't see how AJAX, as a technology (or rather, idea),
> > > leads to consistent drag'n'drop. What do you mean? AJAX is a way
> > > to deal with user interactions in a way that may or may not
> > > require a HTTP request. It's really not a new technology that
> > > enables new techniques beyond that.
> >
> > I'm using AJAX here not simply to mean asynchronous JavaScript, but
> > in the wider sense it's taking on, which is something like "Using
> > JavaScript to actually make web UI more functional, instead of just
> > as a gimmick". This *is* fairly new; most web usability types
> > dismissed JavaScript in the not-too-recent past.
>
> Yes, but my point was that AJAX doesn't make web UI more functional
> at all. It's just an approach to get around the request-wait-receive
> cycle on the web. Making web UI more functional requires web browser
> to start supporting desktop UI functions, like date input widgets,
> drag'n'drop, file drop 'wells', slider widgets, rich text editing,
> image editing and so on.

AJAX in the wider sense I'm referring to is being used to do all of
those things. In some cases, people are writing libraries that allow web
developers to implement those things with a couple of lines of code,
without needing to worry about browser compatibility issues. These
libraries are even being integrated with web application frameworks, so
developers don't have to mess with JavaScript at all, and this more
advanced client-side functionality seamlessly integrates with the server.

For instance, if you're writing a web app in Ruby on Rails, you can make
a list re-orderable via drag-and-drop by simply sticking:

<%= sortable_element("my_list", :url => { :action => "order" }) %>

into your template file. This handles all the client-side JavaScript,
and when a list item is moved, the 'order' action of the current
controller will be called asynchronously on the server with the new
order of the list items as a parameter; a couple lines of code in that
action can save the new order to a database.

Setting up draggable items and drop targets for them is as simple as
sticking things like:

<%= draggable_element("my_image", :revert => true)

and

<%= drop_receiving_element("my_cart", :url => { :action => "add" }) %>

into your templates.

There's no JavaScript date picker in the core libraries yet, but if you
install <http://projects.exactlyoneturtle.com/date_picker/>, you can get
a neat little date picker by just sticking something like:

date_picker_field('event', 'date')

into a template.

> > > > Why? Because they're *simple*. The web in its present state
> > > > doesn't lend itself to apps on the scale of Microsoft Office,
> > > > which has dozens of dialogs, menu and toolbar items, and
> > > > preferences.
> > >
> > > I disagree - I am building a content management system. It most
> > > certainly rivals Microsoft Office in terms of *number* of
> > > functions that require a UI representation. Not everyone is
> > > available at all times, but spanning all my modules there is
> > > functions galore to learn.
> > >
> > > I pride myself in having built Atlas as easy as possible, but
> > > people still try to use it in ways it can't used, mainly because
> > > they are used to a desktop UI.
> >
> > Content management is a special case, IMO. Nobody has yet solved
> > the problem of a generalized content management system well, and
> > the more I explore possible solutions (both those others have come
> > up with, and those I've taken a stab at implementing myself), the
> > more convinced I become that the idea of a generalized content
> > management system is just nonsense.
>
> But a necessity. One could claim that it would be better for cliients
> to purchase different specilized tools for specific functions of
> their web site - like forums, project management, news, calendar,
> mailinglists and so on. But most my clients still value a
> single-login system with a consistent UI (albeit, a
> different-than-dekstop UI).

Well, yeah, the idea of high-level components that integrate
automatically is even more of a pipe dream than the idea of of a general
purpose CMS.

You can certainly build a CMS that works for specific types of web sites
-- say, "Slashdot-like news site". Building a CMS that allows someone
with no programing skills to build whatever they want, on the other
hand, is impossible.

> CMS systems really is the next logical step (and has been for several
> years now). People rarely want to do projects out of their web sites
> that they give to advertising agencies - they rather invest in a
> system that gives them the control.

Just because something would be really, really useful doesn't mean it's
actually possible to implement decently. It's practically inevitable
that no matter what you do, the first actual client you try a system on
will, within 10 minutes, ask for something it doesn't do.

A more realistic approach to building web sites faster, better and
cheaper is to optimize developer productivity, rather than trying to
eliminate the need for a developer.

> > > That goes without saying. And a web app such as google maps
> > > couldn't be made easier if it was wrapped in Sherlock - for
> > > instance. But most of the web apps out there can, actually.
> >
> > Have you used Basecamp? You can sign up for a free account and play
> > around with it at <http://www.37signals.com/>. This app is just
> > absurdly useful for it's intended market, and it's also so absurdly
> > simple it requires basically no training.
>
> I hadn't tried, but I just did. If you ask me, Basecamp is easy to
> use for two reasons:
>
> 1. Great tutorial "mode" 2. It's *extremely* basic and limited.
>
> Anything that has few functions is going to be easy to use. But my
> clients wouldn't really be satisfied with Basecamp.

Maybe that's true. But tens of thousands of people are. Basecamp was
mostly written by one guy; it could probably be re-implemented by
someone else in a few weeks. Yet a large number of people find it more
useful than, say, Microsoft Project.

This is the new model. It doesn't replace the old model outright; but it
does provide a new way of thinking about how to design and deliver apps,
which, as I said previously, allows an escape from the baggage
traditional desktop apps have accumulated over the last couple of
decades.

> > Aside from complex document creation, there's not much that can't
> > be done well on the web these days.
>
> Sure, but still without a good UI :)
>
> > > But not because the web has matured as a UI platform, but rather
> > > because collaboration software and the web is a perfect match -
> > > you SHOULD be able to login to your project "room" from your
> > > office or singapore, using any computer.
> >
> > It's not just the universal access that's so easy to implement on
> > the web. It's also web UI itself. This makes a lot of sense. The
> > basic elements of desktop UI were designed around the concept of
> > single-user document editing, which not the only thing people do
> > with their computers these days.
>
> Not sure what you're getting at here. There are desktop-based
> collaboration software around that I never felt awkward to use
> because desktop UI had some form of multi-user limitation.

Well, sure, because you can put anything you want in a window in a
desktop app -- even a web view, for that matter. But my point is,
desktop UI design is changing. See bellow.

> > Moreover, as applications have gotten bigger, and as users have
> > started multitasking more, some desktop concepts just haven't
> > scaled very well -- like tossing windows and dialogs all over the
> > place. We're seeing desktop apps pick up a lot of UI queues from
> > web apps -- like actually laying out single screens to provide
> > multiple views, instead of sticking each view in its own window and
> > leaving the user to figure things out.
>
> Argh! Soon you'll be a MDI advocate :-D

Consider how iMovie works. In 1995, you'd have written the app with a
viewer window, and a timeline window, and clips window, and an effects
window, and so on. The user would arrange these on the screen, open and
close them from a 'Window' menu, and so on. iMovie sticks all of this in
one window, already laid out for the user, so window management is no
longer a task the user needs to worry about. I'd say this is pretty
clearly influenced by web layout techniques. (And it's very different
from MDI, which still makes the user deal with windows, but just won't
give the user full freedom to position them, because they have to be
contained within the parent window. That's just moronic, and has no
benefits.)

Aperture and Motion use this approach as well, so it's not just for
consumer apps.

Even Final Cut Pro, which does still use multiple windows for these
sorts of things (its UI is a bit older), doesn't really treat them much
like normal windows. You generally leave all the commonly used windows
open all the time, and you usually let the app lay them out for you.

> That aside - my approach to AJAX is to use popup windows actually.
> When in the calendar, and clicking 'add calender event' will spawn a
> small popup that enables you to fill out the required data, and when
> you press submit it inserts it into the db, closes the popup and
> reloads the main window. Ok, so it's not AJAX, but serves the same
> function more or less.

Might be a little more seamless to do something like what Basecamp does
when you add a To-Do item.

--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OS/2 mentioned in a Vista review
    ... Although other applications can continue to paint themselves (no window message blocking), I'm sure a rogue app can still claim ownership of the mouse and keyboard and not give it back. ... Consider full-screen apps. ... Audio subsystem doesn't sound like anything better than DSound or DART (OS/2) in terms of resolution and response time. ... I'm doing more with my computers than ever before. ...
    (comp.os.os2.misc)
  • Re: OSX on Intel Could Destroy Microsoft
    ... >> advanced client-side functionality seamlessly integrates with the server. ... gives everyone more options, and keeps clients light-weight, which is ... >> does provide a new way of thinking about how to design and deliver apps, ... >> a viewer window, and a timeline window, and clips window, and an ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Windows randomly switching window focus on top application
    ... This link here did absolutely nothing to resolve it, as well as running 3 different virus scans, 2 registry scans from 2 different apps, and 3 spyware scans from 3 different apps. ... What happens is if I have 1 or more applications of windows of any application open like this and I'm in the application typing or what not suddenly for no apparent reason I'm still typing however I hear clunk clunk clunk each time I hit a key stroke. ... I am a video editor as well and notice this in my video app as well like while just watching the timeline play and not touching anything I'll go to hit the space bar which should stop the play line, it just keeps going as my system somehow has pushed that window behind something. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: OS X Annoyances (from a Windows User)
    ... It also doesn't guarantee that the window you want will be the front ... and forth its to the same window in a couple or 3 apps. ... it opens to the size that it ... I would take that to mean the placement and size of it when it was last ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Recurring "LSA Shell (Export Version)" error on Startup
    ... If you are getting into the system at all, you can try HiJackThis, a utility to find out if you have an invader. ... There are web sites that will help you know if this is a case of malware, or if you simply need to repair your system. ... instead of taking me to my user ID and password login window, ... to the ctrl-alt-delete window. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
Loading