> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 6:25 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: wussy-wig editor > > On Friday 14 Jan 2005 07:33 am, Jim Davis wrote: > > Which is perfectly acceptable in many situations. If the tool was only > > needed for an "admin" area (private, small user base) it may save money > or > > provide more features to dictate a platform. > > I'm never convinced by this... > > > - IE 5-6 only. ... The HTA framework allows for a lot of functionality > ... > > The enterprise time tracking system is IE only as is our defect tracking > > system (from Mercury) and many of our internal change management > systems. > > When your dealing with several thousand desktops it makes nothing but > sense > > What if you wanted to change those Desktop's to something cheaper, more > secure, or for some other reason (thin client ?) ? > Your app has added to the switching costs, for no good reason.
No - we simply don't (and won't) change those desktops! Although the cost of the desktops, in isolation, might be cheaper, the infrastructure costs alone would dwarf that savings out of the gate. When you've got 3 or 4 hundred people trained to manage windows desktops, install windows desktops, configure windows desktops and diagnose windows desktops there really is no cheaper alternative. The physical costs alone of physically addressing many thousand desktops across several dozen offices (not to mention several hundred affiliate offices) would be massive. It's the total project cost that kills you, not the cost of the desktops. So, if you're set on the your desktop then it only makes sense to leverage that choice. In my current case QA for the application will account for roughly 40% of the total project cost. That's QA on a single platform. To also QA another platform would extend that by perhaps a quarter or a third (I assume that only the UI would need to be tested). On this project that might mean something like $40,000 extra. One one of our larger projects it could mean millions extra. All that being said I agree completely that whereever possible you should: 1) Understand when you're using a platform-specific feature and be able to defend that choice (if it costs as much to complete the same functionality in a cross-platform way then that should be done). 2) Encapsulate your platform-specific code as much as possible. This allows you to replace that code more easily in the unlikely case that you might have to. In my case I'm using IE (HTA-specific) code to fetch XML-data (for example) but then I place that data into a DOM container for use. The fetch code could be modified to work (for example) in Firefox pretty simply, but the usage code should already work as is. The fetch code is encapsulated into a distinct JavaScript object (as is the parsing code for that matter). I know where my dependencies lie. I also know that a lot of people DON'T work this way - and I think they should. The ability (via choice or corporate mandate) to utilize a single platform doesn't mean you should ignore all others. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Dreamweaver with Homesite Plus from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=54 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:190501 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
