Inspired? No home

Comments for: Web browser changes wanted

Just wanted to comment on the comments i got for my post Web browser changes wanted which was featured on JoelOnSoftware. Thank you all for your interest and comments! Look forward to hearing more of your views.

<blockquote>Travis said…
You should check out Nexaweb ( I think they have what you need.
</blockquote>Couldn’t really find that much practical information there. But it seems that it doesn’t seem our needs.

<blockquote>Anonymous said…
Agreed. Any estimations what this cost in terms of development time, like so

WebFactor = [WebForm DevTime] / [WinForm DevTime]?

Also; what’s your users’ view on the subject? Do they suffer from the Web’s poorer UI, or are they happily unaware?

// Martin Rosén-Lidholm (martin_rosenlidholm[snabel-a]</blockquote>We don’t use .NET so I cna’t comment on WebForm vs. WinForm.

We have taken a very much Windows oriented GUI in our web-application. Using grid’s, right click-menus, tree’s etc. to make the user feel like they are using a Win32 application. In addition we are using hidden frames and javascript to ensure that we don’t refresh pages when we don’t have to. Similar to what Google is doing with Gmail, though their XML and HTTP requests are more than we currently are doing.

<blockquote>Mike said…
I think you can do a lot more than today - on the server.
Looks very interesting. I’ll have a better look later.

<blockquote>Anonymous said…
Sorry, but…

“After all, HTML isn’t evolving, so web pages and browser rendering in 2007 will be essentially the same as today (which means the web, or at least HTML, is as good as dead […]).”
Rockford Lothka

// Martin
</blockquote>If HTML will be dead then what is the future? I am sure that HTML (or XHTML) will be the web standard. In addition we will have additional XML standards to overcome the current problems. CSS will become more powerful. X-Forms. More JavaScript capabilities.

<blockquote>Anonymous said…
If HTML remains unchanged, it doesn’t mean that the web is dead : on the contrary, it means it has reached a big enough market to be relied upon and trusted to create new tools and new uses. Think blog / wiki / groupware / ERP ;-) / etc…

Perrick –</blockquote>The web..dead? ;)

<blockquote>Anonymous said…
XML support without plugins:

I have used for parsing & accessing XML. It’s not perfect but it works.

Kari Hoijarvi</blockquote>Looks very interesting! I had a quick test but couldn’t get it to work with my current script that uses MS XML Parser. Tried using that object with Mozilla but it didn’t work.

<blockquote>Anonymous said…
Well… You could solve those issues using HTML/JavaScript/CSS, but the easy way would be using Flash. Flash easily solves all the problems you mention here (and then some…), it’s fully cross platform, vitually everywhere and 100 % identical on all platforms. What more do you want?

</blockquote>Flash is great for some things. Like advertising, product demos, animations etc. But for general web-pages and in our case - a web-based ERP-solution - Flash is not the best option. Flash has many disadvantages though it is a great tool to use.

Written on 06 August 2004.
blog comments powered by Disqus