On 2005-02-28 (16:34) Tamas E. Gunda wrote: > >After the creation of many Chime pages in the past I've made several >Jmol test pages - I intend to write some new tutorial pages in >organic chemistry and before doing so I wanted to test Jmol. An >important point in my eyes is that the use of the pages must be as >user friendly as possibe: my experience is that 9 out of 10 people >is in a hopeless situation, if instead of normal start-up the system >displayes a broken pipe icon, or pops up a message window demanding >to download and install something, or simply crashes or freezes. >
hi Tamas, I'm not sure here - are you referring to what happens with the Jmol applet, or Chime, or just in general? >In a classroom environment the situation is far more easier because >all of the computers can be set up the same way by an advanced user >or system administrator. Nevertheless, when the pages are put to an >open web site and are intended for general use between Rio de >Janeiro and Stockholm, the situation is more pessimistic. > again, not sure if you are referring to a specific software package here, so it is hard to respond with anything useful. >Chime plugin: the user has to download and install it him/herself - >but even the simple installment under IE or Netscape is problematic >for many of them. In the case of Mozilla/Firefox the npchime.dll >file is to be copied manually form the IE plugin folder into that of >Firefox - again, problematic for many users. However, if it is done, >Chime works quite reliably (apart from a few advanced method under >Mozilla, but usually there is a roundabout). > please let's not forget the vocal minorities out there - Mac and *nix users. Chime does not run in OSX, being practically limited to Netscape 4.x in OS9. I don't think Chime runs at all in *nix. Chime is no longer being developed by MDL, so what you see now is the best you will ever see. IOW, it's all downhill from here :-(. >Jmol applet: In theory it is beautiful: nothing to be installed by >the user, everything is downloaded on-the-fly. In fact, when I >tested my test pages and those found in the Jmol site in several PCs >around the results gave a very mixed impression. > can you provide URLs to your test pages? sometimes even a master craftsman tends to blame his tools... ;-) there is a lot more than just Jmol involved here; let's work out exactly what and where is the problem. also, what version of Jmol are you using, and in what context? (local or server, Jmol.js, etc?) >Even the WinXP - IE combination is uncertain: it is known that WinXP >SP2 and SP1 (after February 3, 2003) do not contain the Microsoft Java >Virtual Machine, so in PCs with a brand new WinXP installment the >applet did not work, however, when the WinXP was upgraded from an >older version it worked. The applet in Firefox or Mozilla with the >1.4.x Sun java RE never worked (the browser crashed), but after >upgrading to java 1.5.0 it worked. Opera with java 1.4.x worked (I >haven't too much experiences with the Opera browser, anyway). > I can not really comment on these specific problems except to say that if you download and install the Sun JVM, your applets (including Jmol) should work. My Dell came with XP and the Sun JVM pre-installed, and I have never crashed a browser with Jmol on this machine. >To summarize, I am in dilemma - which is the better solution? To >make everything in double? The presence of Chime is easy to test, >and if ok, lets use it. However, the check of the Jmol applet is not >so straightforward, as its functionality heavily depends upon the >actual JRE. If the browser hangs up (as in the case of JRE 1.4 and >Firefox) nothing helps and the user will probably avoid to visit >such pages again. > IMHO, Jmol and Chime represent 'advanced' functionality of the Web. so I would argue against putting a visible, active Jmol on your home page, for example, until you can run some basic compatibility checks. that should handle users with incompatible combinations. then you can explain what your user needs to do to use Jmol, provide links to necessary components, and be as helpful as possible with troubleshooting problematic installations. this is the standard way to handle such functionality. it is easy to look at well-established 'browser helpers' like Flash and use them as a comparison. that is not exactly fair; these packages have been around for a long time and have a lot of time and $$ invested in development. it is also easy to expect something like Jmol to work fine out of the box for all users on all browser and platforms, and that is not really fair either. it is hard enough to account for the systems that *do* want to play nice with Java, to say nothing of certain companies that have decided to actively undermine Java. and finally, it is easy to overlook that Jmol or Chime is not the only player here - you also have browsers, JVMs, and operating systems all changing at the same time. personally, I would use Jmol. it is in active development, open-source, and supported by dedicated developers and a wide user base, and has a bright future. it has given me the greatest return on fewer problems so far. "There's too much blood in my caffeine system." ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
