 | |
#41
 
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Re: Browser support was Re: New Group for DesignBAIS -
07-28-2005
, 10:11 AM
|
Dawn, There are also emulators that can be used for PDA's, so you can run your app via your PC for testing |
if you have a good URL ...
Quote:
|
- though at the end of the day you STILL need to test on the 'real' target device. |
my family photos, perhaps that wouldn't be necessary.
Quote:
|
For example, we developed a Warehouse picking/putaway application for a client, using RF Symbol PDE's, BUT hadn't counted on the fact that Symbol would "enhance" the standard version of the browser .... client ended up having to PAY to get the Symbol version so you could actually STOP the soft keyboard appearing & taking up 1/3 of the (already limited) screen! |
(probably is?) collecting stories like this.
Quote:
|
We haven't tended to see such "enhancements" in the WAP phone space yet for the applications we have have developed for mobile sales forces, or more precisely they haven't gotten in the way. In terms of general BI (Browser Independence), you still need to have SOME minimum - ESPECIALLY if you are going to be using AJAX technologies (nice to know that some of the technology behind Visage now has a flashy buzzword we can use :-), |
Microsoft lock in, or are you beyond that now?).
Quote:
|
otherwise you will have to use techniques like hidden frames ..... but of course to support REALLY old browsers you can't even rely on frames being present ! (Don't laugh - real case, though we didn't 'update' Visage to support things that old, but a client needed an ecommerce site for order placement from University, and the lowest common denominator had no frames OR Javascript! uggggly AS) |
if the browser can't do JavaScript or the user chooses not to, heigh
ho.
cheers! --dawn
Quote:
|
Ross (Visaged) Ferris |
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi Dawn, Is 'I want to use' the operative phrase here? Sorry - I didn't make it clear that I'm the customer and the developer in this case. I, as the customer, have selected tools & standards based on many factors, thereby constraining me, the developer. Right. With that said may I ask how your reply would have related to a comment about design considerations for a 'presence' web site? -Tom |
need for everyone in the world using any browser to be able to read my
web pages, I did think that my site was a presence web site for the
Tincat Group, Inc. company. Few outside of IT would be interested, I
would guess, and I suspect most potentially interested IT professionals
can gain access to a relatively current browser.
Did that answer the question? Apologies if I misunderstood. cheers!
--dawn
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
Simon Verona wrote: Dawn I always thought I kept up with all the industry acronyms.. but somehow, reading your posts always send me diving for Google to look up a new acronymn! <G I usually proofread for such when sending an e-mail to a single person. But when anyone in the world can read what I write, I tend to be sloppy (how stupid is that!), perhaps because I figure someone might stick with me and no one has to. How do you keep up??? A lot of cdp folks, and I think this includes you, keep current on the Microsoft-exclusive side of the house. I try to keep current on things that do not lock into Microsoft and I'm really ignorant on the .NET or even VB side. I like to read and also want hands-on knowledge so I try out approaches I think are promising. I keep trying to figure out how it can be easier for single developers and small teams to write production quality, scalable, maintainable, big-bang-for-the-buck software applications like we used to be able to do. Way back when, we could design, develop, and deploy software much more handily than today, it seems. Then came the following buzzwords: client-server & GUI, relational databases & SQL. Others followed that further complicated things: Object-oriented & Java/J2EE, http/web, and "open" combined with Microsoft anything if you didn't standardize on Windows across the board. So, I follow UI, DBMS, programming languages & tools, and web trends. I finally decided to combine the first and last of these and leave all non-browser UI's behind because it is now possible, if not yet easy, to develop rich UI's in a browser. I see nothing on the horizon to reverse this trend and plenty to support such a decision. How do you do anything else other than keeping up with the technology??? Until now I could have answered that, but I'm about to launch into some low-income time to do full-time industry analysis, dabble, and write, with a little teaching. I suppose not being a "browser" based developer saves me from a lot of the heartache in developing browser software - I know from bitter experience on writing what appear to be even the most basic web sites that getting cross-browser compatibility is much more a black art than a science! It's something that you either need a RAD environment to do, or you need to be *very* experienced in developing for all the browsers - ie you need to be doing it full time! For me, this is too much, so I chicken out! I hear you -- I only changed my mind on that recently and I'm not close to satisfied yet. Give me .net and a windows client any day... At least I only have Microsoft to contend with! See, you took that other route, the one that actually works because it is laid out by a single vendor. I should have been so wise. smiles. --dawn |
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
Tom deL wrote: Hi Dawn, Is 'I want to use' the operative phrase here? Sorry - I didn't make it clear that I'm the customer and the developer in this case. I, as the customer, have selected tools & standards based on many factors, thereby constraining me, the developer. Right. With that said may I ask how your reply would have related to a comment about design considerations for a 'presence' web site? -Tom I might not understand that phrase properly. Although I don't feel a need for everyone in the world using any browser to be able to read my web pages, I did think that my site was a presence web site for the Tincat Group, Inc. company. Few outside of IT would be interested, I would guess, and I suspect most potentially interested IT professionals can gain access to a relatively current browser. Did that answer the question? Apologies if I misunderstood. cheers! --dawn |
#45
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
Hi Chandru, Having dealt with browser delivered solutions for the past 4 years, I absolutely agree with Dawn. Absolutely agree with which part(s)? That supporting more than one brower family is a PITA? I don't see any disagreement there at all. That one should disingenuously suggest that playing with the toys is somehow equivalent to deploying a business web site for a client? My original comment was clearly in the context of the latter. |
Quote:
|
Can you give me an example of the sort of specs that require you to use such bleeding edge technology that you intentionally reduce your clients' target audience? In my experience, doing the 'fancy stuff' on the server and using widely supported technology to deliver it to as many browsers as possible has been the best approach + comment on Flash. |
opposed to just a web site, though I would use the phrase "business browser
data solution" to distinguish it from a mere presentational web site.
Quote:
|
It's not that you're using "bleeding edge technology", it's just that you have to be acutely aware of the quirks of the browsers. Much common knowledge SNIPped |
thread. Browsers are touted as whatever-compliant, and they're not.
Quote:
|
Yes and some of us have been doing this for many years. A reading of my comments would show that doing this is precisely what I was suggesting to be appropriate for designing a business web site for a client. Surely you can comprehend that 'creating a rich browser experience' or even deploying an in-house web based data access solution have vastly different requirements than does presenting a corporate web site. -Tom |
presentational websites, be they "corporate web sites" or artist's web
sites. I'm talking about a BUI (browser user-interface, to satisfy Tony),
which displays data and other elements from a database, interactively, in
this case happening to be Pick. It uses elements commonly used in
presentational web sites, but is mechanically generated so database
applications can be initiated rapidly, conistently and repeatably. So what
do I not comprehend?
Chandru Murthi
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
Have you been working with PICK for 35 years now? Unless I have my facts wrong, that would make you the single most experienced person in the PICK work, right? Dawn, if you keep flirting with Chandru I'm going to tell your husband! |
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
Have you been working with PICK for 35 years now? Unless I have my facts wrong, that would make you the single most experienced person in the PICK work, right? Dawn, if you keep flirting with Chandru I'm going to tell your husband! Jeff |
So, you are thinking that a girl-geek, occasional pick historian,
flirts by reminding someone that everyone who went before him in this
effort was dead? Yup, I'm pretty much the life of the party ;-)
Hope you are having fun in Jersey, Jeff. Cheers! --dawn
#48
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
That one should disingenuously suggest that playing with the toys is somehow equivalent to deploying a business web site for a client? My original comment was clearly in the context of the latter. Don't understand what this is about. What toys? Your original comment: |
Toys: Sorry, perhaps unfortunate shorthand for 'using the technology
because it is there'.
Quote:
|
Can you give me an example of the sort of specs that require you to use such bleeding edge technology that you intentionally reduce your clients' target audience? In my experience, doing the 'fancy stuff' on the server and using widely supported technology to deliver it to as many browsers as possible has been the best approach + comment on Flash. I am talking precisely about "deploying a business web site for a client" as opposed to just a web site, though I would use the phrase "business browser data solution" to distinguish it from a mere presentational web site. |
your client's services and/or wares to prospective customers or
clients?
Since in this thread Dawn states that she isn't concerned with lost
visitors (the point of my involvement in this thread), can you give me
an example of a client's specs that would cause you to intentionally
not support one of the major browsers? I will be the first to admit
that I have been doing this too long and maybe am stuck in old ideas.
Quote:
|
It's not that you're using "bleeding edge technology", it's just that you have to be acutely aware of the quirks of the browsers. Much common knowledge SNIPped Wasn't too common to me when I started, which one of the points of this thread. Browsers are touted as whatever-compliant, and they're not. |
everyone knows about them. One of my old ideas is a rule that I have
used for years: The browser wars should only impact me (as a site
creator), not my clients.
Quote:
|
Yes and some of us have been doing this for many years. A reading of my comments would show that doing this is precisely what I was suggesting to be appropriate for designing a business web site for a client. Surely you can comprehend that 'creating a rich browser experience' or even deploying an in-house web based data access solution have vastly different requirements than does presenting a corporate web site. -Tom Again, I think Dawn and others are, and certainly I am, not talking about presentational websites, be they "corporate web sites" or artist's web sites. I'm talking about a BUI (browser user-interface, to satisfy Tony), which displays data and other elements from a database, interactively, in this case happening to be Pick. It uses elements commonly used in presentational web sites, but is mechanically generated so database applications can be initiated rapidly, conistently and repeatably. |
case then this is all moot. My original comments were regarding
presence or marketing web sites ('merely' presentational or otherwise).
By 'presence' I mean those intended to sell goods and services to
prospective clients.
Quote:
|
So what do I not comprehend? From somewhere Northwest of Knockemstiff, Ohio it appears that you might be missing the distinction between situations such as: |
a. An experimental, educational or proof of concept site such as Dawn's
example. In this case she expressly does not care about lost customers.
b. An internal data solution or intranet site. In this situation one
can pretty well dictate what browser will be used since all 'customers'
will be employees or business associates.
c. A 'presence' site intended to entice folks to purchase whatever it
is that our client wishes to sell.
Elsewhere you tout your lack of marketing acumen. Marketing is
obviously not one of my strong suits either. One thing I have learned
however: The marketing folks tend to get mighty crabby when prospects
are chased away before even being exposed to their efforts. Since (in
this context at least) my work is subordinate to theirs, I need to
listen to them <g>
Basically I am saying that we should not reduce our clients' exposure.
I have yet to see any reason to intentionally reduce the audience for
my clients by requiring the use of browser 'A' or plugin 'B'. No, I
don't support PDA's or intentionally weird browsers. Yes, if it shows
anything approaching a 10% level of market share I will certainly try.
maps.google.com is an excellent example of using pretty sophisticated
technology in a context that makes sense. Do your clients have needs
that press the abilities of browsers beyond something like this?
Note that virtually all modern browsers are supported by
maps.google.com. Epiphany, Firefox, IE5.5+, Netscape7+, Galeon, and
Safari all work with nary a glitch.
With Safari's close cousin Konqueror the first page squawks, suggesting
a list of browsers which are supported. An option is presented to 'try
anyway'. When selecting this option, everything seems to work fine
excepting the first page (a map of the US for me). I suspect that this
failure might be tied to the warning (perhaps a simple oversight and
Konqueror isn't in the list?)
Do we owe our clients less than this?
-Tom
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.