08-29-2002, 09:44 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
I am going fat again
Evolution of user interface is in an interesting phase. Fifteen years ago we went from character based DOS applications to Windows applications with a rich user interface. Then came the Web and initially we took quite a few steps back in terms of user interface richness. The first generation Web pages were, except for those ugly fonts, colors and frame borders, more or less on a DOS-level in terms of user interface. Web design has come a long way since then. The actual markup language (HTML) and the authoring tools have been significantly improved. During the improvments, Web applications have taken over the user interface battle against the so called "fat" Windows applications.
But as soon as we finally believe that the thin Web applications have totally overthrown the fat clients, we see a trend in the opposite direction. The trend is more visible from a mobile device perspective than from any other perspective. Given the small screen sizes, fat clients offer distinct advantages over thin Web applications. If you really wish to optimize the use of valuable screen estate, then it is a serious pain to get everything from overall application navigation to the smallest pixels right in Web applications. This is not so when building fat Windows applications.
The developer article "The Diminishing Importance of HTML" is an interesting read on the subject. The author, Rick Strahl, writes:
"What's Wrong with HTML as a Front End?
Although Visual Studio .NET makes it somewhat easier to build HTML-based Web applications, it is still far from simple. There are too many limitations in HTML's markup definition and no matter how fancy the wrapping is around the basic controls, HTML still produces an inferior interface to those found in desktop applications."
Let's discuss! I am going fat again. The previously seemingly obvious choice, Web application design, is no longer so obvious. At least not from a mobile device perspective. What do you think?
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 09:51 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 355
|
|
Re: I am going fat again
html is great, and i think i'll always use for parts of a technology solution, but it won't be the only thing...i'm really interested in rich applications, that's what i build. with flash as the front end for example. as long as my presentation layer can support xml, video, sound, animation, etc...that's where things are going, that's what the market is asking for now.
fat is good.
cheers,
pt
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 10:17 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 37
|
|
i've been doing some work with asp.net recently, and it is a good step forward in terms of building web applications. it is now possible to produce event-driven web apps without writing pages of javascript, but html is definitely limited for user interfaces. i'm still a fan of producing simpler layouts instead of fudging a ui using sliced'n'diced images, and i think flash will be the next step for me in terms of ui development now that i have got my head round truly separating the content from the layout. css allows you to do this separation and gives you far more control, but i get frustrated by the major differences in rendering between browsers, even the modern ones like ie and mozilla. to acheive full cross-browser compatability without resorting to fudges and hacks requires giving up too much functionality.
off-topic question for pt: you're obviously a long-term flash fan, but what do you think of svg?
__________________
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 10:41 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 102
|
|
I've been doing some programming with C#, the Compact Framework, and Smart Device Extensions. I'm not a web programmer, I write applications, so a system where I can code functional chunks shareable easily across platforms and just have to specifically code the UI is excellent.
I've always thought complex, over-large web pages were a pain, even when I appreciate them (on a large screen over a broadband modem). You appreciate them a lot less when you have to download them over a slow modem or, worse, GSM, and if you have poor vision (or a small screen) they get worse.
OTOH, there will always be a place for web page applications because you can't go around downloading every application client to a PDA. I just wish that more applications had a UI a bit more like the Google search page; simple, clean, takes no time to download.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 11:01 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 761
|
|
Off topic? =
Designing user interfaces (=skins) for pdas is challenging. I always try to make my skins as easy to use as possible while still looking good. It is a challenge since I can never be sure if people want something that is flashy and uses up lots of screen real estate or something that has a tiny footprint and leaves tons of room for the actual data. Any input on this?
Examples:
http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.as...=GO&library=14
This one has a minimal footprint.
http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.as...=GO&library=14
And this ones leaves less room for user data but is a bit flashier.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 11:25 AM
|
|
Neophyte
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 8
|
|
in favor of fat interfaces
As a developer since 1982 (as amateur) and since 1991 (for a living), I noticed the shift from central based character interfaces, to distributed all-the-way full-features fat clients, and back to horrible character-look-alike interfaces.
I have been saying for the past 4 years that I do not believe in this latest trend: I am a believer in the fat interfaces.
Web-based (read: html interfaces within browser environments) applications tend to be slow, without much immediate feed-back to the user, with horrible network trafic (the whole interface is sent over the network, not only the data), and tend to be specifically tailored to suit the slowest user.
Applications using a fat client concept on the other hand are not only much more user-friendly, they are also responsive, and allow in many cases to the user to have more views open at the same time of its data (e.g. using treeview and detail screens at the same time).
The pocketpc is ideally suited for this fat client concept since the screen resources are extremely limited, and browsing around in the internet browser on the pocket pc is not really user friendly to say the least.
I leave the web-based believer to their believe. Live long and happy.
But I made the choise for myself. No web interfaces if I can avoid it. After all, user satisfaction is much more important than blindly following the trend-of-the-week just because your manager has read some article hypeing web-based development.
No offence to anyone with another opinion,
Guy.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 12:12 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
Excellent thoughts, everyone! I thought I was about to get flamed...
It is important to add, though, that fat clients do not mean non-standard and proprietary. Fat clients can be as good Internet citizens as any Web browser. As long as the fat client adheres to the standards such as HTTP, HTML, XML, TCP-IP, XML Web Services etc, we won't nescessarily run into "walled gardens" just because we go fat!
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 12:17 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 75
|
|
I am also a fan of fatter clients. That said, I enjoy making these clients in Java and I have been really disappointed with the support of Java on the PocketPC. Sun had a BETA version which was nice (Integrated well with the PPC UI), but it is no longer supported. Insignia has a supported version which is shipped with the iPaq, but it looks horrible.
/ mike
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 12:28 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 102
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Sjostrom
Excellent thoughts, everyone! I thought I was about to get flamed...
|
Never 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Andy Sjostrom
As long as the fat client adheres to the standards such as HTTP, HTML, XML, TCP-IP, XML Web Services etc, we won't nescessarily run into "walled gardens" just because we go fat!
|
Point taken, but all that stuff doesn't guarantee compatibility. XML seems to be seen as the great data conformance standard to make everything compatible to everything else, but that is just plain rubbish. You can write unreadable XML just like you can write unreadable C, and just because something is written in XML, doesn't mean anything can read it. Even with a DTD, if you don't understand what the schema means, you aren't going to be able to use the data.
|
| |
|
|
|
08-29-2002, 12:28 PM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,177
|
|
If you are into that Sun thing and still have a crush for Pocket PCs, what Java tools and VMs out there do you guys use?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
